Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Citizens' Compensation Bill (Mr. Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: I have looked again, with great care, at the amendments to the Citizens' Compensation Bill to which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) added his name yesterday. It is unusual for amendments in the name of an hon. Member in charge of a Bill not to be called, and perhaps I owe the hon. Gentleman an explanation. Incidentally, the House well understands why the hon. Gentleman was unable to add his name to the amendments before yesterday.
In the provisional selection list published yesterday afternoon, I was not able to select the amendments concerned, then standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), because in my view they amounted to a wrecking of the Bill, which was given a Second Reading and approved by the Standing Committee. Since the hon. Member for Leigh added his name to the amendments, I have re-examined the position carefully, but as my judgment was based on the matter of order rather than on selection, I very much regret that I am unable to change my ruling.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Far be it for me to question your judgment and your ability to assess a situation that inevitably conflicts with the rules of the House, but I listened to your ruling with some dismay and disappointment because it means that the Bill will be hijacked to a large extent. Nevertheless, I honourably accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in view of your long experience and of my deep respect for you, which I shall always have.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for so

carefully considering amendment No. I in particular—and we fully understand and respect your reason for not selecting it. I take this opportunity to say that the Government have looked very carefully at amendment No. 1 and are consulting the judiciary about minute details and certain aspects of it. Subject only to that, the Government are grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for the opportunity that his Bill gives to debate that amendment. The Government looked for a way to take it into statute, and we will seek a future opportunity to bring to fruition that which the hon. Gentleman has given us an opportunity to start.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 too am aware of the great care that was taken not only last evening but in the early hours of this morning, and more recently, to ensure that the business put before the House today is fully within its rules. I cast my mind back to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. Clauses that had been deliberately excluded by the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill were included on Report, a very late stage in the legislation. As a student of procedure, I am genuinely puzzled as to why changes can be permitted in one direction yet not in another.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the easiest way to deal with the matter would be for the hon. Gentleman and for the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) to come and see me privately about the matter when I shall be very happy to explain it to them.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too am grateful to you for having spent a good deal of time on considering whether the amendments should be dealt with. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) who says that his Bill has been hijacked. It is now a completely different Bill from the one to which the House gave a Second Reading. In Committee the hon. Member for Leigh very sensibly, honourably and rightly dropped the first four clauses of the Bill, which were the main meat of the Bill. Another clause was added in Committee to deal with no-fault compensation. It was an entirely different clause and it led the Bill off in an entirely different direction. I am not sure that the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill that we are to discuss this morning and whether it now accords with the long title.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member puts his finger on the very point. If he cares to join the hon. Members for Leigh and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), I shall be only too happy to expand upon the matter.

Orders of the Day — Parking Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—Display of information—
. The following section shall be inserted after the section 35A inserted by section 2 above—

35B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities to display at off-street parking places provided by them under section 32 above such information about parking there as is specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations under this section may also—

(a) require the display of any orders under section 35(1) above relating to the parking place;
(b) specify the manner in which the information and orders are to be displayed;
(c) exempt local authorities, in specified circumstances or subject to specified conditions, from the requirement to display information and orders, or to display them in the specified manner; and
(d) provide, in relation to a parking place at which a local authority fails to comply with the regulations or with any specified provision of the regulations, that, except in any specified circumstances, any order under section 35(1) above shall be of no effect in its application to that parking place in so far as it requires the payment of any charge in connection with use of the parking place—

(i) while the failure to comply continues, and
(ii) as respects vehicles parked there when the failure to comply was remedied, during a specified period thereafter.

(3) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different circumstances and for different descriptions of parking place, and may exempt specified descriptions of parking place from any provision of the regulations.

(4) In any proceedings for contravention of, or non-compliance with, an order under section 35(1) above relating to an off-street parking place, it shall be assumed, unless the contrary is shown, that any relevant regulations under this section were complied with at all material times."

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that this amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
After Report and Third Reading here, which was almost exactly three months ago, I did not expect that I should have to bring my Bill before the House again. I am, however, happy to do so this morning as a result of an amendment that was agreed in Committee in the other place. I fully agree with the amendment. It has my fullest support.
As it is some three months since we were last considering the Bill in this place, it is only fair to hon. Members, and to others, to tell them briefly about the important nature of this Bill. Throughout its passage, it has received a broad measure of all-party support. It is

comparatively unusual for Bills, particularly of this type, to receive all-party support. I am therefore delighted that it has received the support of the other parties.
The important point about the Bill is that, until 1986, there were no vehicle parking provisions that permitted the use of any form of payment other than cash. On the surface, that appears to be most surprising. Many of the people to whom I have spoken while the Bill has been before both Houses have expressed considerable surprise about it. I suspect that it is just a legal anachronism. Many people have been greatly inconvenienced over the years when paying for parking their motor cars by the lack of flexibility in parking arrangements, particularly by local authorities. They believe that it should have been put right many years ago.
I pay credit to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who successfully introduced a private Member's Bill in 1986 which is not all that dissimilar from the private Member's Bill for which I am responsible. It provided for parking equipment that was not operated by coins to be used, but unfortunately only on the street. It related mostly to the type of parking meters that we see on every street. It was a limited measure, not through any fault on the part of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North but because at that time he felt that it was a useful measure for which he felt he could obtain all-party support. It had a successful passage through the House and it has had limited success so far in one or two local authorities.
The only problem about the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which he perceived at the time that he introduced it, was that inevitably there would be difficulties in obtaining the confidence of manufacturers of parking equipment. It was clear that a small-scale scheme would not necessarily encourage them to manufacture equipment if the market for it would inevitably be limited. It was an inspired Bill and a useful piece of legislation, but it did not achieve enough.
When, therefore, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to introduce a private Member's Bill, I thought that it would be useful to build on what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North had done in 1986 by trying to broaden the scope for the use of such equipment so that it could be used for both off-street parking and on-street parking, thus ending up with a comprehensive piece of legislation in which both local authorities and the manufacturers of parking equipment could place their confidence.
I have already said that I am grateful for having received all-party support for the measure and for the fact that I am able to build on a measure that was introduced in 1986 by an Opposition Member. I am particularly pleased to be able to give full credit to him for what he began and for his own measure.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does that mean that once the Bill becomes law, assuming that it does, both on-street parking and off-street parking will be treated in exactly the same way? That would obviously be sensible.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that at this stage the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is in


charge of the Bill, will now deal with the Lords amendment. I understand that he has made his introductory remarks.

Mr. Kirkhope: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. For my hon. Friend's information, though, that is correct.
The new clause, which is headed "Display of information" is an enabling provision. In itself it does not impose any new obligations. In that sense, it can be described as a free-standing clause. It would add a new section to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but it would not affect any of the other clauses.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend share my disgust at the fact that not one single member of the SDP or the SLD is present in the Chamber? Does not that show that they do not care tuppence for the interests of motorists in Britain?
When my hon. Friend deals with the Lords amendment —which, as you rightly pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the only issue that we are debating today—could he tell me the reason for subsection (2)(c), which seeks to exempt local authorities in specified circumstances? I think that this amendment, passed by the other place, is excellent, but I cannot envisage why any local authority should be exempted from having to display the information that is mentioned in the Lords amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I shall come to subsection (2)(c) in due course. I am also sorry that no SLD or SDP Members are present, but in their defence I must stress that the Bill had all-party support and sponsorship.
The new clause does not impose new obligations. Its justification is strengthened by the fact that the Bill, if passed, will open the way for increasing use of new forms of off-street parking control, taking advantage of new technology and non-coin-operated systems. Inevitably there will be a much wider use of various systems, including payment by magnetic cards, vouchers and other means.
Obviously there are great attractions in that there will be less scope for fraud and theft and more cost-effective and efficient means of maintaining parking systems, moving away from the traditional coin-in-the-slot approach. The Bill will also encourage a great number of manufacturers to produce equipment using new technology. One leading contractor in Yorkshire, near Halifax, feels very strongly that there is considerable export potential in Europe and in other continents.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Does he agree that there is potential for British manufacturers to increase the scope of the equipment that they produce and to export it to other countries? In regard to the signs that are the subject of the Lords amendment, some marvellous British manufacturers produce leisure signs, and they will benefit from the Bill. Does he further agree that there are lessons for the ordinary motorists? When they see the marvellous British equipment and signs, they might reflect that it would be better if they were driving marvellous British cars?

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend's last remark moved slightly away from the Lords amendment. I occasionally count the number of British cars in our car park at the House of Commons and I am reasonably encouraged that the vast majority, but sadly not all, are British. My hon.

Friend is quite right that it is not just a question of the enormous export potential for metering equipment; as he says; there is also enormous export potential for the signs to which the amendment refers—exports which Britain needs. Britain has a large industry producing attractive and useful signs, so I am pleased to support my hon. Friend's point.
Motorists clearly need to be informed about the changes that might result from the new legislation. It is important that the consumer should have more information. We are living in a society which increasingly recognises the importance of consumers, and it makes sense that they should be provided with such information by right. The Lords amendment refers specifically to car parks which are under local authority order, so it refers primarily to the interests of local authorities served by the legislation, as they will be able to organise their car parking arrangements much better in future.

Mr. David Wilshire: My hon. Friend rightly draws the House's attention to the fact that the Bill will affect local authorities. Does he agree that there are just as many problems arising from lack of information or misleading information from private car park operators, especially from those who provide a field on occasional days?

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Lords amendment and the Bill do not tackle that specific point. As the vast majority of car parking in Britain is provided by local authorities or is subject to local authority orders, they should be entitled to make their car parking arrangements as attractive as possible, and thereby I hope that they will make sure that, wherever possible, people will use local authority car parking. The Bill has received a very broad welcome, and the amendment has been welcomed by the local authorities that I have consulted. They feel strongly that they have been restricted in some ways in the provision of car parking spaces, and they would like more flexibility. The technology that they will be able to introduce will enable them to plan their parking much more around the facilities that the parking is there to assist.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Following the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised, what is the effect of the amendment on local authorities which provide car parks but decide to put them out to private tender? Obviously, we are moving in that direction, which I believe is right. I was once in control of parking in Kensington and Chelsea, as chairman of the works committee. I had to suffer many long and arduous public meetings at which people complained that there were simply not enough car parking spaces run by private companies or local authorities.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for using the Chamber as a confessional this morning. He is right to say that the Bill does not related to independent private contractors, but it will apply to those who act as agents for local authorities in the supply of car parking. I am not sure of the latest statistics, but about 90 per cent. of off-street car parking in Britain is subject to local authority order. Therefore, the Bill refers to the vast majority of car parking arrangements. Inevitably, it will not cover everything, but it is designed to cover the majority of off-street parking.

Mr. Frank Cook: I crave the House's indulgence; I have not been present throughout the debate as I have been busy on other pressing matters, which unfortunately have not been very fruitful.
I am intrigued by the structure of the amendment, and I need some help to understand it. Subsection (2)(a) requires
the display of any orders under section 35(1) above relating to the parking place;
while subsection (2)(c) would
exempt local authorities, in specified circumstances or subject to specified conditions, from the requirement to display
The amendment appears to require local authorities to display, and then to exempt them from displaying. The logic of that escapes me, as a simple-minded soul. Will the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), without the assistance of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, explain that to me?

Mr. Kirkhope: In each case, it is a question of "may". I shall move on to explain the precise details of the exemptions in due course. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised a specific question about subsection (2)(c) and I said that I would deal with it. If the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will bear with me for a little longer, I shall come to it in due course.
As I was saying, it is important to remember that local authorities are the largest collective providers of off-street parking. Undoubtedly there is still a need for further private sector development, but it is vital that local authorities are encouraged to provide facilities that are co-ordinated with the development of shopping centres and other places of attraction, particularly in our cities but, to a lesser but still important extent, in rural communities. There is a developing interest in tourism and, until now, local authorities have been somewhat reluctant to provide extra off-street car parking because of the difficulties that I have explained, such as fraud, theft from machines and other problems associated with car parking. The Bill will predominantly help in urban areas and will help local authorities in planning their parking provisions.
10 am
There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to display information on how car parks are managed. Other hon. Members have probably also experienced great frustration from time to time in the diversity of information in off-street car parks. It is extremely piecemeal. Information is very clearly displayed in some car parks, with a clear statement of how much it will cost to park, for how long, and the times of opening.
One may go to another city or town and find that the very information that one has come to rely on is no longer displayed. There may be absolutely no information displayed at the next car park.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is probably another dreadful example of the gross incompetence and bad management of some local authorities, especially Labour-controlled ones?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I do not accept that there is any political difference in this matter. I accept that some car parks are well managed and that some are badly managed by local

authorities, but I would not assume that the political persuasion of the council means that a car park is badly managed. Certain car parks in urban areas may be run better than others.
I am trying to help all local authorities. There was some surprise earlier that a Conservative member should want to do anything to help local authorities. That comment seemed to be rather odd. Conservative Members and the Government do a lot to help local authorities, although we do not always get appreciation for it—I wish that we did. Most support for my Bill has come from local authorities in the north of England, the area that I am proud to serve, and most of them have been Labour-controlled.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he has had to bring forward his measure in a private Member's Bill. That is because some Conservative Members support and help local authorities, and his Government do not have the same record. The local authority in the area in which I live, Lewisham, manages car parks extremely well—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. No doubt the House will help all local authorities tremendously if we get back to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am grateful for the intervention by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). I do not demur in agreeing with her. I have already said that there is a wide diversity, and sometimes even a paucity, of information in off-street car parks. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not provided until one enters the car parks. The entrance to a car park is often down a dark tunnel, and, by the time one gets to the pay machine, there may be 20 or 30 cars behind one, sounding their horns as one tries to negotiate the ramps.
One then finds that the information that is provided, which is not substantial, is unacceptable. It may be unacceptable because the pricing structure is disgraceful or because one fundamentally disagrees with certain terms and conditions on the notice. One's vehicle may no longer be technically acceptable for the car park. It may be too long or too wide. Disabled people also have a problem. It is important to measure the number of spaces for them.

Mr. Greg Knight: I am here not to help local authorities, but to try to help the motorist. That is why many Conservative Members are present. I am rather heartened by my hon. Friend's remark. As I understand the Lords amendment, regulations could provide that information should be displayed not only inside the car park but perhaps at a point that can be seen from a public place—in other words, from the highway. Will my hon. Friend confirm my interpretation and that it will be possible to require that a list of parking charges be clearly visible from a highway?

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend is right in one way, but I said a few minutes ago that this is an enabling measure. It is not inevitable that that will occur. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister's powers will not need to be invoked. We are trying to obtain good practice so that we do not need to introduce anything further. When the legislation is in place, many local authorities that are not doing as well as Lewisham and one or two others will put their houses and car parks in order. I am sure that plenty of departmental assistance will be available for local authorities that wish to know what sort of information


could or should be supplied. I am sure that they will get a lot of co-operation and help, and that will be to the good of the motoring public.
I do not say that only local authorities will benefit. Clearly, we are concerned mainly about the motoring public and consumers, but the interests of local authorities can be consistent with those of the motoring public. Practice varies from one authority to another, or even from one car park to another under the control of the same local authority. Motorists would welcome more consistency in information. Some information should certainly be provided at car park entrances, so that a driver can choose whether he wishes to go into that car park. I hope that many of those things will come about anyway. That will be as a result either of a decision to operate good practice, or from pressure from users or users' organisations or consumer organisations which will realise the effects of this measure and how they can guide those who provide the facilities.
The important point about the amendment is that, if it is desirable, the Secretary of State could promote consistency of treatment by means of regulations. That would require the display of specified information. I emphasise that that is not the Secretary of State's desire or my desire. I like to see such things happening without the need for regulations. The public feel the same way. They would prefer to have a good voluntary code of practice rather than regulations, which undoubtedly have an unhelpful effect.
This measure applies only to those local authority off-street car parks under section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I emphasise that the aim is to provide a reserve power, but in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, North, I stress that it is only a reserve power and would be used only if such measures proved to be necessary in due course.

Mr. Greg Knight: Assuming that we accept the amendment and the Bill is passed into law, who is to monitor whether local authorities are following the spirit of the Bill? How will we know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will need to lay down regulations? We need some feedback. I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that he expects motorists to write in to complain, because we need something more organised than that.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend's remarks. I do not know what he means by "organised". Does he mean that we should have a group of people snooping around car parks? I would not dream of describing motorists and consumers as "snoopers", but they are extremely interested parties and if they are "snooping" in the most favourable way and deciding that the way in which information is displayed is unacceptable to them, we are entitled to ask: who else is better equipped to complain or comment?
If the individual motorist does not want to complain himself or herself, there are plenty of organisations that serve motorists in this country that would do so. I am sure that the Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association and the Consumers Association would be most interested in that. I am also sure that the pressures that they can bring to bear would be far more effective than the official organised snooping that my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is being a little over-sensitive to the suggestion that consumers should check up on things. One of the best ways of getting a rotten service from a trader or a supplier of a service is to take bad service lying down and not to complain. We need not be in the least bit defensive about saying that consumers should complain if they receive bad service.

Mr. Kirkhope: I would not argue with my hon. Friend on that point. It is a fair comment, but I do not feel that I am being over-sensitive. I am simply expressing the views of many people in this country. I am trying to put things right for them and am seeking to do so in a way which is as uncontroversial, and I hope as useful, as possible.
Subsection (2) covers the additional matters which may be provided for in the regulations. For example, regulations may require the display of the order made by the local authority under the provisions governing the use of the car park.
When one enters a park or takes children to play on the swings in a recreation ground, in all likelihood one will see the byelaws relating to the operation of that park or recreation ground prominently displayed on a large hoard. Perhaps the main provisions of the car parks orders could be displayed in a comparable manner.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have been listening to my hon. Friend with interest. Has he ever seen anybody reading the byelaws so prominently displayed? They are often in such tiny print; on such large and intimidating boards and written in such total gobbledegook that nobody can read them—certainly not in the open air, with the rain coming down—so how could such boards be read if they were at the entrance to a car park where the motorist will encounter cars queueing behind, with other drivers tooting and trying to get their tickets?

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have often seen lawyers reading such notices. As my hon. Friend and I were both of that persuasion before we came to this place, I am sure that we both read such notices avidly. Indeed, it does not really matter whether one is a lawyer or not—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is not the real problem the fact that such gobbledegook was probably written by people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot)?

Mr. Kirkhope: That may well be the case. However, I am glad that we have moved away from the basis of the charge being by way of the number of folios, because that will undoubtedly reduce the length of such information in the future.
My hon. Friend has beaten me to my next point. I was about to say that the display of such information should not take us away from the crusade for plain English, which is so important. I referred to the need for plain English earlier in the passage of the Bill and emphasised the importance of making sure that everything that we write is in plain English. There is no point in something that people cannot understand. Part of the responsibility for the way in which something is written rests with the legislator but the responsibility also lies partly with those who display the information. They must ensure that the


way in which it is displayed, on a board or on an illuminated sign, is sufficiently attractive to ensure that people will read it and that they will be able to understand it.
The regulations by the Secretary of State could also specify the manner in which the information is to be displayed and could stipulate the location of any such board or display. Motorists should be given adequate information either as or before they enter the car park. I should prefer it to be before. That would at least ensure that motorists will know which vehicles are permitted.
That reminds me of the famous case about the Mount Charlotte Hotels, which other hon. Members who are lawyers will almost certainly remember. That case established that, on checking into an hotel one should be able to see displayed on the counter or reception desk the conditions or provisions governing one's stay in that hotel, before one signs the register to book in. At that point, one is entering a contract with the hotel about the provision of accommodation and food. If one wants to argue about the conditions, one must do so before contracting with the hotel. Therefore, a hotel is obliged to provide that information as near to the entrance or to the start of one's contract with the hotel as possible.
It is only reasonable that similar provisions should apply to off-street car parks. I see no reason why a motorist should find out too late that the car park is unacceptable to him in some way.
The information to be displayed should also include details of whether season tickets apply, and should give the scale of charges. I refer again to the powers of local authorities, because several local authorities in the north have told me that they would very much welcome the sort of technology that would allow them to alter the pricing structures of their car parks, dependent upon the day of the week or the time of day. That would enable them to assist those who provide shopping facilities and to encourage people into the centres of towns, which are often deserted at certain times of the day, by offering a lower pricing structure at those times, but a higher pricing structure at the periods when people might want to park their cars for commercial and business purposes. It is felt that people should pay more for on-peak rather than off-peak time.
The technology can be monitored and operated in such a way that those changes can be made, and given that the local authorities have that flexibility, it is important to ensure that the motorist knows that those provisions apply. It would be most unfair if one arrived at a car park at 11 am one day and was charged 50p an hour, but returned on another day at 8.30 am to find, only after one had entered the car park, that the charge at that time was £2 per hour. Because of the impact that the Bill will have, it is even more important that that flexibility, which the local authorities welcome, should be notified to the motorist before he or she enters the car park.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right to say that the siting of the information is crucial. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, so will he confirm that where subsection 2(b) specifies the manner of display, "manner" to a lawyer means the location as well as the content and the size?

Mr. Kirkhope: I would certainly interpret it in that way. Certainly that is what is meant to be implied by it. I hope that other lawyers will agree with that opinion.
These measures are especially important where barrier systems operate, because once one is under a barrier and the barrier closes there is no retreat. One is stuck. The only way out of the car park is then along the route which takes one to the checkout.

Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend has now mentioned an important point, because some car parks put their conditions under which one can park one's car on the ticket that is dispensed. When one takes the ticket from the machine, the barrier lifts up. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is unreasonable to expect a motorist in a queue of traffic to stop at the barrier to read the information on the ticket before he drives under that barrier. Will my hon. Friend assure us that he proposes that this information will be displayed not only on tickets, but on signs that can be seen from a distance?

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It confirms what I have already said. It is an important point and is part of that with which we are trying to deal.
Subsection (2)(c) provides for the exemptions which the hon. Member for Stockton, North mentioned; I hope that he will be returning to the Chamber shortly. It is important to allow any regulatory regime to be tailored to meet the main objectives and not to apply regardless. There must be flexibility in the system. For instance, it would be fair to say that it may be difficult for very small car parks, which just come under local authority orders or, importantly, seasonal car parks which are there only for a temporary period, but are subject to a local authority order—such as Christmas car parks—to display the information in the form in which we would like to see it. I believe, therefore, that it makes a lot of sense to have exemptions in such circumstances, because they would provide a considerable amount of flexibility.
There have been many press reports recently about the problems of specific groups of people with upper limb disabilities. I must admit that the Bill is almost coincidental. Sadly, it was not designed primarily to help such people, but it just happens that it will help such disabled people considerably. Obviously such new systems of payment as are proposed—such as magnetic cards or vouchers—would be more convenient for disabled drivers, especially those with dexterity problems, for example, thalidomide victims. However, those are only the tip of the iceberg of people who have such problems.
I have heard from organisations representing the interests of such groups that some disabled people have considerable problems in handling coins, so they will welcome what we are trying to do. They will welcome, too, the fact that much information will be provided on the information boards about the number of disabled parking places available, the location of those places in the building and any other provisions which are designed to help them. It will tell them, for example, where ramps are located so that, once they have parked, they will have easy exit from the building, which will be useful to them.
We understand that more than 1 million British adults have difficulty in reaching and stretching. Indeed, nearly 2 million—certainly 1·75 million—have problems with dexterity in their upper limbs. I know that manufacturers


and designers of such equipment are well aware of the needs of people who are not able-bodied. I hope that they will ensure that they install equipment which is most helpful to them. Certainly, disabled people could be helped by the amendment from the other place.
The amendment will also give the Secretary of State the power to require local authorities, if necessary, to display information for those who are disabled. I hope that those powers will be taken up by the Secretary of State, if necessary, but that in the meantime they will be implemented as good practice by local authorities, having been given the encouragement.

Ms. Ruddock: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said and the help that the amendment could give to people with disabilities of the kind that he has outlined. I hope, however, that the provision will be for free passes for the car parks and that he is not suggesting that such people should merely be given the facility to pay through a different means.

Mr. Kirkhope: That is outside the scope of the Lords amendment, so I cannot really go into it. However, I would say that the delivery of the plastic card for parking purposes does not imply either that the card has had to be bought for cash or that it was provided under some scheme. The hon. Lady has hit on a point with which I would like to deal. The joy of a plastic card is that a disabled person does not have to handle cash, and the card could be provided to them under a scheme which gives them the security of being able to park in a place which has been well designed to deal with their problems. The hon. Lady raised a good point, and I hope that I have dealt with it adequately.
It is important that a mechanism is provided to secure compliance with any regulations. Paragraph (d) provides for that compliance in an ingenious but nevertheless, important manner. The failure of local authorities to comply with any future regulations would render the car park order of no effect in so far as it placed an obligation on the consumer or the motorist to pay a charge. That is not exactly dynamite, but it is the sort of provision that will hasten or help along the implementation of a good code of practice. It would certainly be used only in an extreme case. However, it is important for the consumer and the motorist that it is in place. Therefore, in order to protect the car park revenue and the enforcement of their charges, it would be in the local authorities' interests to see that any regulations displayed are properly observed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked on whom the onus would be to show anything other than good practice. It is right that that onus should be on the user, and that will be well reflected by the user or his consumer or motorist organsation.
Further provision is made in subsection (3) to allow for the exemption altogether of specified types of car parks from the application of the reglations, or their exemption in specified circumstances. The intention is to provide a framework which can be fine tuned to any set of circumstances. We had difficulty interpreting how new technology would be used. It is difficult to be precise about what will happen to car parking devices in the future, so, the legislation has been prepared in such a way that it will allow great flexibility for that new technology when it comes aong, without the need to burden this place with

further legislation. After all, one of our interests is to keep legislation to a minimum; clearly we are doing so in allowing that flexibility within the Bill.
In the Lords, the Government clearly indicated that they had no immediate intention to make any regulations. I hope that the Minister will refer to that point and confirm what I have been saying. It is important to underline that fact.
The new clause acknowledges the reasonable expectations of car park users to be properly informed about the arrangements governing the use of car parks and about their obligations. I can see no good reason for anyone to oppose that principle. The new clause enhances what I have always said is a modest measure, where there are no losers, only gainers. The Lords amendment is an eminently sensible and valuable addition to my short, but I hope practical, Bill. With those few words, I invite the House to give its approval.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am sure that the practical and concise speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) will have destroyed any potential opposition to the Lords amendment. As was pointed out, if the Social and Liberal Democrats are content not to be here, the burden can be carried by the Labour and Tory parties.
There is good co-operation between local authorities and central Government on this matter. No local authority has written to the Government opposing the extra powers in the Lords amendment. I give an assurance that the Secretary of State hopes never to have to use them. It is far better to have voluntary acceptance of a standard of information to provide necessary help to all people.
If the House wishes, I can deal with some of the points in more detail. As my hon. Friend made clear and as I am sure is acknowledged by the presence on the Opposition Front Bench of both the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and by the keen interest of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), the provision of information can help those who have difficulty using car parks. That brings me to the point raised during business questions yesterday by the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).
I shall relate all my remarks to the provision of information and the Lords amendment. Most of us obtain our information not from notices outside or inside off-street car parks, but from newspapers and television. I pay tribute to The Sunday Times which fought for thalidomide victims in a long campaign, at great cost. The journalists involved showed great bravery. The outcome shows that a persistent campaign of being reasonable and sometimes unreasonable can occasionally bring great advantage to those in great need. Many other groups will follow that example and benefit from reasonable, and unreasonable, campaigning.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked whether free provision would be made and whether cash needed to change hands. I regret that The Sunday Times did not cover our consultation document published in 1986 about whether orange badges should be extended to the upper limbless. Perhaps it did not feel that it was newsworthy. An


article two weeks ago managed to suggest, or was sub-edited to suggest, that in 1986 the Government withdrew the opportunity for the upper limbless to have orange badges. The truth is completely the reverse. I am not accusing The Sunday Times of lying. I do not wish to use strong language or to have a war with it, ITN, the Evening Standard, the Thalidomide Trust or Mr. Gordon Piller. I simply want to set out the information openly.
In 1986, the Department of Transport, with my approval, asked whether the upper limbless should be included in the orange badge scheme. There were hundreds of responses. In April this year, we announced the conclusions. The predominant, strong advice and the recommendations of the statutory committee, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, was that the scheme should not be extended to the upper limbless or those who are unable to carry. The reason is not in any way to target Thalidomide people as being not disabled or deserving. Some Thalidomide people already have orange badges. Others do not want them. At least one, and probably others, did have one but did not get it renewed.
The media have a responsibility to declare facts as well as the right, which I acknowledge, to put forward opinions and to campaign. It does no good to run a campaign to double the number of orange badges from 1 million to 2 million, which, together, ITN, The Sunday Times and the Evening Standard could do. The Evening Standard editorial stated that it would not matter whether there were 2 million instead of 1 million, but that would destroy the magnificent achievement of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, who managed to introduce the national scheme.
When we consider information displayed outside off-street car parks in local authority hands, we are talking not only about local schemes but about the national scheme. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the national scheme and provided information not just outside car parks but on cars—the national orange badge scheme. I have with me the proposed variant which will introduce other improvements. It is relevant to see whether people who use information in off-street car parks are entitled to any concessions that the orange badge may bring.
The national scheme was introduced to avoid disabled people having their front windscreens covered with four, 14 or 40 local badges. The House approved the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It was a breakthrough. As the 1975 regulations made plain, it was designed for those who could not walk an appreciable distance without great difficulty. In 1982, following consultations, the House approved regulations which did not make a material difference to those criteria.
The scheme has run from its conception, through its inception, through the review in 1982—the regulations came into effect in 1983—without change. I regret that the coverage of the consultations which started in 1986 and the announcement of the Government's preliminary conclusions were ignored by most of the media. They were not ignored by the disability organisations. The joint committee and the statutory committee both gave clear advice to the Government.
After we announced the conclusions, we held a press conference at the Department of Transport. We then came

here for an immediate meeting with the all-party parliamentary committee on the disabled, which spans both Houses. It took two members of the statutory committee about 35 minutes to get from the Department of Transport to the House of Commons. That illustrated the problem that people in wheelchairs and others with disabilities have in moving about.
As the chairman of the statutory committee said in a letter to The Sunday Times, there are two further problems, among many. One is how to pay for parking. Alison Wright, whose case has been mentioned in the media, is disabled and I hope that she will not mind my using her name. An ITN news item which I did not see would have illustrated the problem, judging from the response of the editor of the Evening Standard. The second problem is shopping. Neither problem is necessarily solved by the orange badge in itself. It is difficult for those whose arms do not work effectively and for those who do not have arms, for reasons including Thalidomide, to carry shopping.
Most people would accept that it would be immoral to extend the qualifications of the regulations just to people who are Thalidomide vicitms, unless their level of disability is greater than that of those who otherwise would be excluded from the scheme. It is important to use the figures with great caution. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has estimated that more than I million people have significant practical difficulty in carrying shopping. I do not argue that all those people would necessarily want an orange badge. If we start using the ability to carry shopping as one of the criteria for issuing an orange badge, we will not be limiting the number of orange badges in circulation, although there are no quotas or targets, but extending it dramatically.
We have sufficient evidence to suggest that local authorities are creating more and more no-loading areas. Often, the implicit reason for that is to exclude orange badge holders from using the side of the road in such areas. Local schemes for the disabled driver are also increasing. During last week's transport strike, I walked through Kensington and Chelsea, where I saw the Kensington and Chelsea blue badge. That might entitle the user of that badge to free parking in a Kensington and Chelsea off-street car park. The information might be on the board of its car parks for the benefit of disabled people.
One can imagine, however, reaching the situation whereby a disabled person not only has to apply for such a blue sticker in advance, but may end up with a green one for one area, a red one for another, one with black vertical stripes for another or one with horizontal blue stripes for yet another area. We would return to a terrible proliferation of such badges and schemes, and the effect would be to exclude various people from parking. It would be like having a sign at off-street and on-street car parks saying, "Disabled persons not wanted here". If that happened, the no-go area and apartheid system against which the most severely mobility disabled handicapped people argue against would be created.
Let me make it absolutely plain, that the Department of Transport recognises that Alison Wright and other such people are disabled. Those who were able to attend the tremendous mobility road show at Crowthorne in Berkshire at the transport and road research laboratory, where 20,000 people, most of them disabled, came together, will recognise that the Department is keenly


interested in working successfully with local authorities, the private sector and the disability organisations to overcome the problems of disability wherever possible.
The Department has a good record. Although I have done a great deal to support the work undertaken, that good record is not particularly mine. It is a good record because of the way in which the matter has been treated as a non-party, non-personality issue. Great credit goes to many involved, but some of the greatest credit goes to the former permanent secretary at the Department of Transport, Sir Peter Baldwin.
During the International Year of the Disabled, Sir Peter asked what could be done to help disabled people meet their transport needs. Once one can help a disabled person overcome his transport difficulties, one is helping him in every other way.

Mr. Alfred Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Bottomley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.
Transport is the key to overcoming most of the disablement in life that disablement of the body or the mind brings about.
The person who listened to Sir Peter Baldwin ask that question was his private secretary, Ann Frye. Although it is not the convention to mention the name of an individual civil servant people will recognise that her service to the disabled community, to the Department and to the voluntary organisations as head of the disability unit in the Department has been unusual in its dedication and unusual in its success. That success has mostly been achieved through partnership. I intend to continue such partnership.
Independent Television News has suggested, perhaps because it did not have enough time to consider it, that orange badges will now only be given to people with serious walking disabilities. Such a suggestion is no doubt an unintentional mistake. Those with serious walking disabilities who get the concession of the orange badge in off-street car parks where the relevant information is available know that they have always been entitled to that badge. It was suggested that the concession on the board at such car parks should be extended and that the numbers of those eligible under the national scheme should be increased. The ITN report also suggested that officials at the Department do not recognise that a particular person is disabled. That is a great insult to civil servants who know as much about this as most, and more than many.
It would be better if those who want to do programmes on the disabled consulted the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. Although we do not agree on every point, we recognise that all are bona fide in their attempts to make progress. We also recognise the care, consideration and hard work that officials at the Department and local authority officials undertake in trying to overcome the problems of the disabled.
In the transcript from ITN, Alison Wright is quoted as saying that she is not talking about going out shopping, but about operating ticket machines in car parks. In that connection, it is important to consider what information is available on the board at car parks and whether that information could make it plain that someone with a disability, whether upper arm or some other, could use that car park. It is no good finding oneself in a car park

and then discovering that it is not possible to use it. Such information would be covered by the Lords amendment if the local authority operating the off-street car park did not provide that information voluntarily. I expect that all local authorities will want to provide such information.
Alison Wright asked how she was expected to get up to the machine, put the money in and get her ticket out. She said that the ticket machines used to be fairly high off the ground. I am sure the reason why those machines are now coming down is the work of those concerned to make life easier for the disabled. I do not want to get into a war with Alison Wright's father, so I shall leave out some of the comments he made. The question and answer sheet that has been made available to all hon. Members makes it plain that we are taking further medical advice on the assertion of Mr. Gordon Piller that Thalidomide victims have difficulty in walking—not when shopping or leaning down. That is a new claim and we are discussing it with the medical profession and the Thalidomide Trust.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will Professor Smithells of Leeds be involved in that consultation? He had much to do with the medical advice given in the early 1970s when we were campaigning for adequate compensation for the Thalidomide victims. He is a man of considerable experience.

Mr. Bottomley: That is a sensible suggestion. Together with the Thalidomide Trust and the medical experts, we shall find a way in which to make an assessment without requiring every Thalidomide person to undergo a new medical assessment. I agree with Mr. Gordon Piller that it would be wrong to say that one particular group should be subjected to a medical assessment every five minutes every time Parliament is discussing the issue. It is important to accept expert medical advice, and I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
As the assessment about Thalidomide people's difficulty in walking was known in the 1970s, if it had been relevant to the entitlement to the orange badge concession, which might be illustrated in the information at the entrance to an off-street car park, it would have been specifically built in to the criteria for issuing orange badges in 1975 or in 1982. That suggests that the solution is not as simple as The Sunday Times, the Evening Standard or ITN may have suggested.
If I had the power to write to someone to say that someone else should be given an orange badge, I would have done so. I have been in my job for three and a half years and I have never issued or withdrawn an orange badge. I have never instructed that a particular person should not have an orange badge. If that had been made plain by the media earlier on we could have had a more helpful discussion. If any one person wants to expand the criteria, it is better that it is done in such a way that it is outside the full glare of publicity. It is better to discuss the principles and to use illustrative examples rather than focusing on one particular person with a problem and on one person who may be thwarted in what is seen as an uncaring and unthinking way. I have no doubt that one of my friends in the media will now say that the Minister has described himself as "uncaring and unthinking".
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has done well in extending the provisions set out by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)


to deal with on-street car parking. We must continue to solve the problems of the disabled. That does not mean merely providing information on car park boards, but looking at issues in a different way. I am sure that we will soon decide that the idea of putting cash into meters is ludicrous; it is caveman stuff. It would be far better to use a stored value smart card that loses value with use. That would make life very simple for those using parking facilities.
I hope that the media will help in putting across the important issues and will help to explain that it is important that, over the past five years, the number of orange badges has gone up from 600,000 to more than 1 million. At the present rate the number of orange badges will increase to 2 million within the next five years. It is important to bring those numbers down so that those who have the orange badges are clearly identified as those with the most severe mobility—walking or moving—handicap.
We want to solve the problem faced by disabled people when shopping and trying to put money into meters, whether off-street or on-street. We also want to try to solve the problem that they face when driving cars. I expect to see more people being legitimately entitled to orange badges—for example, more elderly people driving and more people receiving the mobility allowance. Those are the sort of points which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East and others have been putting forward.
We do not give the greatest help to those in greatest need by giving a small amount of help to those with a recognised, but lesser or different, need. We must work across the spectrum, and I pay tribute to the general work of the all-party committee for the help which it gives. I hope that today's debate, while persuading hon. Members to accept the Lords amendment, which is a sensible one, will also illustrate some of the issues. If we can persuade more of the media to cover all the issues related to disability and the ways in which problems can be overcome, we shall move forward in a far more useful way than we shall if the sort of ludicrous and partial coverage —which may be necessary in the competitive press of today, but does not help those with disabilities—continues. We are trying to cut the number of casualties and disabilities—which is what road casualty reduction is about—and I look forward with interest to see what the killed and serious injury rate is when the next figures come out. Quiet, undramatic banging away, never letting go and fighting for a client group is what lobbying and campaigning is about. That is honourable work for newspapers, Members of Parliament and Government Members.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In relation to the Lords amendment on the display of information, I want to ask whether the regulations made by the Secretary of State will include information relating to disabled people or make special provision for them. In particular, I want very briefly to raise, as the Minister has done, the predicament of people with no arms, including many Thalidomide victims, which arises from their exclusion from the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled people. The scheme is one which, as the Minister recalled, I introduced as a private Member in my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I must emphasise that I did so with all-party support in both Houses of Parliament.
There has been widespread publicity about the cases of people who are upper limbless and strong public support for their inclusion in the scheme. Their predicament, and often humiliation, is due to their inability to feed parking meters and, if they are trying to carry shopping, they face further intimidating difficulties as severely disabled people. In any case, the mobility of people without arms is often held to be restricted by loss of balance in walking. That, I trust, will be one of the issues which the Minister will be trying to tackle in his consultation with medical advisers.
Some people with no upper limbs who are now excluded were in the scheme until recently. They were excluded at a time of growing concern about the considerable increase in the number of beneficiaries of the scheme who now exceed 1 million and, some will say, they were excluded because of the abuse of the scheme by people who do not need the very important benefits it confers.
The answer to that problem is, of course, that we should deal with abuse by tackling the abusers, if necessary by increasing the penalty for abuse, instead of piling handicap on handicap by excluding some very needful people from the scheme. For my part, I would rather lock up serious abusers of the scheme than lock up severely disabled people in their own homes. Any relevance which the Lords amendment can be made to have to this problem will be widely welcomed, more especially if it can provide any amelioration of the problems of people with no upper limbs for whom parking concessions can often mean all the difference between living a normal life and becoming heavily dependent on other people, even between becoming a taxpayer and staying at home on social security.
If the Lords amendment can help in any way to solve the problems of disabled people, there will be considerable relief among the Thalidomide victims and other disabled people who feel wrongly excluded from the scheme. I shall be grateful if the Minister will address the problem in the days ahead. He has my assurance that I fully appreciate the difficulties of ensuring that the scheme is strictly limited to those who need the benefits it gives. The Minister knows of my concern about those difficulties and their crucial importance to people who cannot walk. I urge him to offer some hope to those who are now asking this House for its help.

Mr. Greg Knight: I broadly support the Lords amendment. The reason I do so has nothing to do with whether I feel it will be helpful to local authorities, but because I believe that it will safeguard the interests of the consumer and be good news for the motorist.
As I read the Lords amendment, it will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to require that signs are displayed which not only show the cost of parking in a particular car park, but will ensure that the sign states whether the car park is open or closed, its hours of opening, the penalties for not purchasing a ticket, the cost differentials at different times of the day or days of the week, and the general conditions of use. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) has not entirely laid to rest all my concerns on the matter. I have a number of questions which I hope that he will answer when he sums up. I noticed that the Members of the other place, in welcoming and supporting the new clause, said that they thought that it would be a good idea to have a sort of British standard so that every car park in


the country would display a sign of similar size, containing similar information. That is an excellent idea, but no mention was made of whether we would be likely to run into difficulty with our friends in Europe.
Hon. Members may well recall that we ran into difficulty a few weeks ago about the size of health warnings on cigarette packets. The European Commission thought that it was competent—and, unfortunately, it appears that it was—to start laying regulations about the size of warnings on cigarette packets in this country.
Will we find that we spend time debating this issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East listens to the views expressed from both sides of the House, only to find that, at the end of the day, some bureaucrat in Europe has an idea that we should have bright pink car park signs of a certain design, and all our efforts on this Bill have come to naught? Therefore, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Bill will not fall foul of any pending legislation before the European Commission? It would be too much if Europe interfered in this matter, and the question should be answered today.
As I read it, the new clause could be construed as saying that the regulations could deal with the language to be used on these signs. Does my hon. Friend think that some local authorities may feel it appropriate to display the information not only in English, but Urdu or some other language. I understand that, only this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East had difficulty with a French motorist in London who parked in front of his garage and refused to move his car. There may well be a case in tourist areas for car park signs to be written in European languages as well.

Mr. Kirkhope: My hon. Friend has failed to say that I had 100 per cent. success in dealing with the matter by simply writing in French a notice politely requesting them to go away.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That probably qualifies as a personal statement and we may want to remind hon. Members who have not been in the House for long that it is not right to question people on a personal statement of that sort.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order to which I need respond.

Mr. Knight: The House will admire the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East in getting rid of the unwelcome motorist in the way that he did.

Mr. Kirkhope: I did not write the notice. It was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) who is better at French than I am.

11 am

Mr. Knight: I am sure that the House is grateful for that explanation.
Although I have raised the lighter side, it is a valid point. If one visits certain parts of the country, one is immediately struck by the predominance of tourists. That is particularly so in London, but it is also the case in Stratford-upon-Avon and other parts of Britain. Therefore, there is a case for dealing in the regulations with those tourist areas. I should like some assurance that if it were felt necessary by a local authority to display the car park signs in other languages as well as English, it would be able to do so under the scope of the new clause.

Mr. Frank Cook: In view of 1992, it might be sensible to make that sort of provision. It seems eminently sensible.

Mr. Knight: That is a valid point. I hope that the day is no too far off—perhaps the next century—when all the people in the world can speak English. In the meantime, we need to make provision so that the motorist, whatever his native language, is able to see where to park. This makes sense because one does not want to find the roads in tourist areas cluttered with the cars of motorists who are here for only a short stay and do not know where the car parks are and cannot find out because they cannot read the signs.

Mr. Wilshire: I thought that my hon. Friend was putting together two thoughts which do not work. He was saying that whatever language a driver speaks he should be able to see where to park but if we follow that argument, it may be impossible to see where to park because the signs would be so big.

Mr. Knight: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not suggesting that in every area we should have a plethora of signs in different languages. However, a case could be made out in tourist areas for allowing an alternative language to be displayed. I would be interested to hear the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East.
I was somewhat taken aback when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said that he was not sure that the regulations would be made and that they would be a sword of Damocles hanging over local authorities—if they behave themselves and put up signs, he did not think that the Bill would need to be implemented. I think that was what he said. I disagree with him. If we accept the Lords amendment and the Bill passes into law, we should enact the Bill and the regulations to see that there is uniformity throughout Britain.
I do not think that our poor, long-suffering motorists should be encouraged to monitor the signs displayed at car parks and to have to complain to their Members of Parliament if they feel that an appropriate sign is not erected. I will be telling my constituents that if they feel that there is a problem in Derby, they should write to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. If that is his view, he should be responsible for collecting motorists' complaints.
I have a couple of legal queries for my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. Subsection (2)(c) of the Lords amendment to which I referred earlier, exempts local authorities in specified circumstances from having to comply with the regulations. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend give two examples of that. He said that perhaps seasonal or small car parks would be exempted. Can he give me an assurance that he does not see those exemptions being applied selectively and exempting car parks operated by some local authorities? If the Bill means anything, it has to be applied uniformly across Britain. I accept that there may be a case for exempting a small car park or a car park on a temporary site, but I hope that local authorities will not apply for an en bloc exemption in their area.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend, with whom I usually agree on Fridays—I accept that this is a minority interest subject, like the protection of the freedom of the press—must be a lawyer. He is suggesting that my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to get at as many local authorities as possible. That is very un-Conservative. My right hon. Friend does not want to intervene but needs the power to do so in case it is necessary. If he feels that it is necessary to intervene, he will want to do so in a limited way so that if he selects a certain class, he can exempt some within it. The idea that it is all for one and one for all and that there can be nothing out of the ordinary is one which I hope does not get back to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Knight: Perhaps my views on this matter are coloured by the fact that I have to live with Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council, which is one of the most unreasonable and badly run councils in Britain.

Mr. Kirkhope: Both my hon. Friend and I are solicitors, but I hope that he is not trying to give the impression that we all think the same on this issue. Clearly, our remarks and interpretations are different. It shows that within the legal profession there is almost inevitably a diversity in the way we present cases.

Mr. Knight: I prefaced my remarks by saying that I broadly supported my hon. Friend's Bill and the Lords amendment to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that some of my remarks now are couched in the interrogative. I hope that when he replies to the debate he will give me some reassurance on those points.
My hon. Friend touched too briefly on the question of burden of proof, which is covered in subsection (4) of the Lords amendment. To paraphrase my hon. Friend, he said that the burden of proof will be on the motorist and that that is as it should be. I part company with him there. If the local authority is seeking to prosecute or obtain a fee from the motorist, the duty should be on that authority to show that it has complied with the regulations laid down under the Bill.
If I can give an example, I may take my hon. Friend with me on this point. Let us imagine a motorist who parks in an off-street car park where the sign displaying the regulations and terms of parking is not present, perhaps because it has blown down or vandals have removed it. He may omit to buy a ticket from a machine which is perhaps on another floor of the car park and a week later receives a letter from the local authority demanding payment of the fee or an excess penalty. He would be shocked because he did not see any sign. On his return to the car park he may find that the local authority has reinstated the sign. What possible defence could he have if proceedings were brought in those circumstances?
If the duty were on the local authority, it would be easy for it to inquire of the car park attendant, or the person whose duty it is to see that everything is in order, whether the sign was erected at 9 am on a particular day and whether it was still there at 5 pm. The burden of proof should be with the local authority. I can see circumstances arising in which a motorist does not obey the regulations because a sign may have disappeared, but in the meantime a local authority can re-erect the sign and the motorist would have no defence.

Mr. Kirkhope: I must correct my hon. Friend. I do not think that I referred to the burden of proof. If there needs

to be a burden of proof, it will be within litigation or within the relationship between the user and supplier. I said that the responsibility for the need to display a sign or to make a cause should be on the user, not the provider of the parking space.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will find new section 35B(4) of relevance. It says:
it shall be assumed, unless the contrary is shown, that any relevant regulations under this section were complied with at all material times.

Mr. Knight: That is the part of the Lords amendment with which I am having difficulty, because I feel that it is unreasonable. When a local authority is pursuing a motorist for disobeying regulations relating to a car park, the onus should be on it to show that the driver had seen, or should have seen, the notice advising him of the correct course of action to take.
I appreciate the difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has. Last year I wished to move an amendment to the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1988 which was altered in the other place in a way with which I was not entirely happy. However, we do not have a procedure to tamper with a Lords amendment. We have to accept or reject it in toto. Therefore, although I am unhappy about this part of the amendment, I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot take on board today the points that I have raised.
I only hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he formulates the regulations, will give serious thought to the wording of them, so that the motorist is not placed in an unjustified and difficult position when, for example, a sign has gone missing, and he does not follow the regulations of the park correctly. Although I have some doubts about the wording of the amendment, it is clearly designed to safeguard the interests of the consumer. As that is the overriding principle behind it, with some reservations I support it.

Ms. Ruddock: On behalf of the Opposition I welcome this amendment, as we welcome the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). This is a modest measure, which allows charging by magnetic cards or vouchers in off-street car parks, and thus increases choice and flexibility in the provision by local authorities of car parking. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 enabled local authorities to designate parking places on highways and to provide car parks. They remain the largest providers of off-street parking. In 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) introduced a private Member's Bill allowing non-coin operating equipment on the streets. We are pleased today to be able to extend the support that we gave that Bill to this important measure, which allows off-street parking to be similarly operated. However, we are surprised that the Government did not find time for such a simple measure, and left it to be introduced through the private Member's Bill procedure.
The new amendment will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring local authorities to display the proper information at car parks—for example through signs with information about methods of payment, about which we have heard this morning. As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has explained, the amendment is an enabling one and it is our hope that the regulations may not have to be brought in but that there will be a voluntary


code instead. However, if there is no voluntary code, we hope that the Minister will act speedily because it is our belief—as it is clearly the belief of many hon. Members—that the standard of information displayed at car parks is not high enough. We hope that there will be a better display, that there will be consistency in display, and that the information will be displayed outside car parks to enable people to make a proper choice and to know precisely what their options are when deciding whether to enter the car park. We also hope to see a major effort made to display information that is helpful to people with disabilities.
As the Minister spent so much time dealing with the orange badge scheme, I shall make a few comments about that. The onus is now strongly on the Minister to respond to the points made so constructively by my right hon. Frind the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the author of the original scheme. I share the Minister's concern about congestion on our roads and about the difficulties caused by the large number of vehicles coming into the centres of our towns and needing places to park. However, I cannot believe that it would add to those problems if we were to admit 150 upper limbless Thalidomide victims to the orange badge scheme. We are disturbed to know that the Minister judges these matters on the criterion of numbers. Decisions to be made concerning disabled people should be made on the basis of their need, not on the overall numbers who might be admitted to the scheme.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I appreciate that the hon. Lady may not have been able to be present at the meetings of the joint all-party disablement committee and I hope to make more information available because it is important that both sides of the House understand this matter. Whatever decision is made on the regulations, the only role that I have is in proposing regulations to the House. The only regulations that we have are those which were proposed to the House by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I repeat that the 1975 regulations, abbreviated in 1982, are the provisions that the Department put out to consultation in 1986.
The Department, with me as the junior Minister, was the first to raise the question whether the upper limbless should be included. I re-emphasise that there is no question of quotas, targets or discrimination against any group. It would be helpful, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, to recognise the predominant view of the organisations representing the most severely disabled, and to take their views and interests into account. There is probably a solution, but it is not found by saying that 150 people are excluded because of something that has been done. We must find what regulations will allow in those who are most severely handicapped.

Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for that intervention, although it was not overly helpful. I understand that some people were excluded from the scheme in 1986 and that Alison Wright was one of them. What the Minister has said is on record. I took his remarks to mean that he was concerned about the prospect of the 1 million people who can already use the scheme becoming 2 million in the future. It is clear that he is concerned about numbers. Whatever his difficulty in looking back on consultations which come to a particular conclusion, it

should not be beyond his imagination, determination and skill to find a way in which these people, who are quite properly seeking to be admitted to the scheme, could be so admitted.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East spoke about variations in pricing and the need for display of information where such variations occur. These variations are an important factor in traffic management. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of empty car parks and encouraging people into them through low tariffs. There may be such empty car parks in rural areas and small cities, but in London we have the opposite problem. There are too many vehicles and too much congestion, so restraint must be exercised and management improved.
The flexibility that these new systems can offer would be an extremely important tool in traffic management and control and car restraint within our cities. The variations in pricing should be carefully displayed so that people have no doubt about the penalties that they face if they bring in vehicles in peak hours.
Traffic and parking problems in our cities are important factors in our consideration of the Bill and the amendment. The problem of parking is growing, as the number of cars and goods vehicles on our roads increases. The White Paper envisages traffic increasing by between 83 and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. That could mean an increase of 32·7 million vehicles. Hon. Members may wish to speculate on the scale and size of car parks needed to house so many additional cars, no matter what method of payment might by instituted and no matter how well information might be displayed at car park entrances. If we reach that point—as we shall, unless the Government act more positively to deal with traffic problems—the regulations proposed in the amendment might mean signs stating, "Did you need to bring your car today?" or even "Full up—please use the bus next time." The sheer volume of cars and other vehicles is not only bad for parking—it is bad for our environment and bad for safety. I remind the House that the casualty rate in London is the highest in the country. If we continue to build more roads, especially in city areas, we shall exacerbate all those problems.
The provision of car parks with efficient methods of payment and well displayed signs is essential to deal with existing problems. We must also adopt a package of measures, of which an important component must be stricter parking controls. That means increasing fines and penalties for illegal parking and violation of bus lanes. Although we certainly need this small and modest Bill, we also need a more comprehensive approach to traffic problems. The Government should introduce major legislation to tackle the difficulties with which we are all becoming more and more familiar day by day.
We welcome the amendment and appreciate its safety and security aspects. We are in favour of any method of payment which improves safety for those who deal with the machines and use the car parks. We are increasingly becoming a cashless society. That is our choice. We want an opportunity to pay through vouchers—free vouchers, I hope, for the disabled—or magnetic systems, for those of us who can make those choices and who have sufficient money to do so.
The Bill will be widely welcomed throughout the country and the Opposition wholeheartedly support it. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East has had all-party support for his Bill, which is very rewarding for anyone who, as 1 have done, introduces a private Member's Bill.


Piloting such a Bill through the House is an interesting and stimulating experience, but it is also a complex task. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who paved the way for this measure with his original Bill.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that he was offering us a Bill which had no losers, only gainers. That must be extraordinarily rare in this House. The Bill will shortly reach the statute book, which will give the hon. Gentleman a great deal of satisfaction.

Mr. Wilshire: I echo the words of congratulation from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). It is no mean feat to bring a Bill this far, this smoothly.
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Lords amendment because it provides additional safeguards for consumers. I am not known as one who always enthuses about everything that aims to further the cause of consumerism. My wife ran a shop for far too long for me to be wholly in favour of everything to do with consumerism. Therefore, when faced with such an amendment, the first question I ask is whether it is trying to protect people from their own stupidity. The second question is whether it sets out to assume that all providers of service are necessarily crooks. If those were the sorts of consumerism embodied in the amendment, I would not support it. I have learnt not to accept such approaches to consumerism. In the end, they turn the consumer—be he a driver or a shopper—into a human version of a rottweiler who will simply launch unprovoked attacks on quite innocent providers of services.
I have no hesitation in supporting the additional protection for consumers provided by the amendment. When drivers set out to buy parking space they are all too often vulnerable, and certainly not through their own stupidity. They are often at their wits end and may have spent a long time looking for any available parking space. They are often late for meetings—which, I suspect, has something to do with the tourists referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). Because they are late they will take any parking space they can find.
Even when drivers are not simply chasing every available parking space, they are still vulnerable because they cannot obtain the information they need because there are no signs and the car parks are not staffed. Somebody should tackle those problems, and it seems sensible that that person should be the Secretary of State. I accept that there should be certain exceptions—the "just in case" argument is sensible. However, I am not attracted to the argument that just because a car park is small, or just because a car park is temporary, that is a blanket reason why information should not be available.
If the Secretary of State is given the necessary enabling powers, the test whether he needs to use them should be based on whether drivers are genuinely short of information. In an ideal world information would be available at all car parks, but we do not live in an ideal world. In a near ideal world it should be sufficient simply to say to local councils, "You are not providing enough information." I regret to say that experience has taught us that local government as a whole, of whatever political

persuasion, does not have a good track record on doing what it is asked to do. In the world in which we live we must, therefore, make reserve powers available to the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members could no doubt cite many examples of sharp practice and sloppy management by car park operators. I suspect that private operators rather than local government operators are more guilty of sharp practice. Only last weekend, while on the way to Wimbledon, I was stuck in yet another traffic jam and saw a cardboard sign for a temporary car park stating, "Car park spaces here—£4·50." When I pulled up to the entrance, another cardboard sign said, "Car park spaces here—£7·50." That is a classic example of getting the driver committed to coming into the car park and then pushing up the price. It is right that steps should be taken to protect the consumer against such sharp practice.
Again, we could all cite examples of sloppy management. What makes me most furious is when, on a wet day like today, I have driven a very long way and, having found a space at a pay-and-display car park, I find that I have no change. The change machine does not exist or has broken down and somewhere there is a little hut containing two employees sitting drinking tea or playing cards, and a scruffy notice is stuck on the window saying, "No change". That is sloppy management. If that is the sort of car park that the operator wishes to run, he should put a notice outside saying "This is a sloppily run car park. There is no change available."
11.30 pm
If it is necessary to force certain car park operators to put up notices, we should spell out what those notices should say. First, they should say whether the car park is full. We have all had to make the vast trek up five or six storeys of a multi-storey car park, only to find that we need not have gone there in the first place. They should also say whether the car park is supervised, not only because supervision might provide the chance of obtaining change but because knowing whether a large, dark car park is supervised is important, especially at night.
The notices should also specify the method of payment, and whether change is available. They should mention the closing time, if there is one. How many of us have discovered, having gone back to collect the car late at night, that the gates were locked at 7 pm and that, moreover, no address or telephone number is available for someone who might be able to deal with the matter?
Reference has been made to disabled people. If a car park provides facilities such as special spaces, lifts or escalators, the advance sign should state, "This car park caters for the disabled." It would also be helpful if the sign stated whether the car park had toilets. Certainly it should specify the charges. If there is a choice—particularly in the inner cities—between cheaper long-stay rates at the edge of the city and a higher charge for a short stay, advance signs should not only make it clear whether the car park is long-stay or short-stay but should expalin how to find a long-stay car park: not everyone will know the way in a strange town. Notices should give the names, addresses and telephone numbers of owners and operators, so that drivers can take action if they wish to complain or to obtain further information.
Other hon. Members have already raised the question of where the notices should be placed. I think that there should be signs in several places, and that the amount of


information and how it is displayed should vary according to where they are. A large, simple advance notice, telling the drivers whether it is worth their while to join a queue and where they can go to seek alternative parking, would be extremely helpful. Notices should encourage—or require—drivers who opt to queue not to block the road and prevent others from driving around to look for another car park.
For years I drove a caravanette which was over height in many places, and I was frequently unable to discover from car park advance notices what the headroom would he if 1 joined the queue. I therefore feel that notices should specify size restrictions.
Motorists should be able to read a sign at the main entrance before they are committed to driving into the car park. Like others, I suspect, I have had to take a ticket and have then found it difficult, sometimes impossible, to be let out of the car park—because it is full or the conditions are not satisfactory—without having to pay for the indignity of having driven around the car park and then left. The notice at the main entrance should say whether the car park is full and should state the charges, if any. It is crucial that the closing time be clearly displayed, along with the method of payment. Details of owner and operator should appear not only on all signs but on all tickets, so that the driver has a written record for the future.
The size of the notice will have been touched on only briefly when the lawyers were deciding how much small-print gobbledegook should appear. Signs whose print is too small for drivers to read, however, are not only useless but potentially dangerous. Any regulations or code of conduct must specify that the basic information on notices can be read by a driver still sitting in his car.
We have discussed whether temporary car parks should he exempted, but I am anxious to hear whether they can be included. I am not a lawyer, and I am not sure whether the legislation would cover only permanent car parks, but I feel that it should extend to temporary ones. I suspect that the wording of the Lords amendment, which can require local authorities to perform certain duties, confines the scope of the Bill to local government. Although it may well be the largest provider of parking spaces, local government is far from being the only provider, and neither sharp practice nor sloppy management is its exclusive prerogative. If at this late stage the Bill cannot be made to cover privately operated car parks, I hope that someone will strike lucky in next year's ballot and set about seeking to extend it in another private Member's Bill.
I appreciate the cunning of the proposed penalties: they are a good way of concentrating wonderfully the minds of councillors who realise that they may be surcharged if they do not cleat with problems. The Bill does not specify, however, who is to put up notices stating that the existing notices are no longer valid because they do not comply with the regulations.
Having said that, I do not hesitate to add that both the amendment and the Bill have my wholehearted support. Let me finish where I began, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, who has done a splendid job. I am not entirely sure whether I envy him the task of steering a private Member's Bill through the House, but he nevertheless deserves the congratulations of all of us.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope)

on piloting the Bill through its stages in the House. It has been interesting for those of us who served on the Standing Committee to observe the enormous skill with which he has done so. He displayed that skill again today. When some of my hon. Friends tried to introduce party political divisions of view, he poured oil on troubled waters and bipartisanship returned.
I also congratulate spokesmen on both Front Benches on being able to make such wide-ranging speeches within the confines—and the rules of order—of such a narrow Lords amendment. I pay tribute to their ingenuity.

Mr. Frank Cook: Sheer skill.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to the experience of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was right to say that the signs must be clear and that certain minimum requirements are necessary. This is not, as some hon. Members have suggested, a matter of byelaws and numerous details about the rules and regulations—nor is it a matter of posting signs in various different languages. We need clear signs providing people with the basic information that they require, in at least one language—English. We can leave it to local authorities to decide whether, for the benefit of tourists or for members of the ethnic community, such signs need to appear in other languages.
I could point to examples of London car parks which are the responsibility of councils controlled by all three main political parties from which it is very difficult to find one's way out. Signs indicating exit points would help the flow of cars departing and leave spaces free for others. I commend subsection (2)(d) because making it impossible for local authorities to collect any money unless they apply the regulations is a wonderful way of concentrating their minds and ensuring that they display the right signs and comply with the regulations in other ways. I cannot remember which political party controls Ealing council, but my experience of parking in that borough leads me to believe that that council will be unable to comply with the regulations.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning the disabled and his remark that although new ideas and technology are important to them and can make an enormous difference to the quality of their lives, such developments are no replacement for orange badges. I welcome also the nature of the scheme that my hon. Friend wants to operate. During my time in London local government, concern was felt by people of all political persuasions that the orange badge scheme was being misused. Although I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) that the number of badges should not be limited, if too many people who do not really need badges are allowed to have them, the scheme will not be so advantageous as it might be for those who really need the orange badge facility.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If local authorities believe that there are too many orange badges, they will introduce their own regimes, with the loss of the national benefit. As to qualifying criteria, I refer my hon. Friend to Statutory Instrument No. 1740 of 1982, which refers to
a permanent and substantial disability which causes inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking.
That can either be interpreted as admitting a very small group of disabled, which means that the problem can


easily be solved by local authorities rather than by the Department, or the wording must be amended. The number involved is not 100 versus I million badge holders. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who are interested in that aspect will address their minds to the basis of our 1986 consultation. I deeply regret that some interests outside Parliament who now display a great interest in the matter did not bother to write to us about it in 1986, 1987, 1988 or 1989.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that further clarification.
Anyone who read the article about the orange badge scheme in last week's issue of The Sunday Times would instinctively have taken the view that the only reasonable thing to do is issue the additional 150 badges in question. However, my hon. Friend the Minister explained today that it is not so simple as that. If there is to be reasonableness and justice, many categories of the disabled deserve consideration. If The Sunday Times really cares about the cause, and not just about a front page headline, this Sunday it will present a detailed analysis and provide a genuine insight into all the problems.
11.45 am
Cashless parking is extremely important. Sometimes I think that local authorities choose the combination of coins that is most difficult to find in one's pocket. I have often been caught out, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members have, after entering a car park in the belief that I had the coins needed for payment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East describes the Bill as a relatively modest measure, but it is significant to the motorist, who will be extremely grateful for all the work that my hon. Friend has done. Tribute should also be paid to him by car manufacturers and distributors. One day in the future, perhaps we will all be saying, "There is a car park, and I can park there easily using my Kirkhope card."

Mr. Arbuthnot: The amendment is important and gives the Secretary of State a power rather than a duty to make regulations, which is the right way to go about it. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House hope that he will not have to use that power and that local authorities will enter into voluntary arrangements. In the same way that it is better that the Secretary of State has a power rather than a duty, it is better that local authorities act under their own volition than under central direction. Ours is not a centralist party—or should not be—and this should not be a centralist House of Commons. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) agrees that the Secretary of State should be given the power to compel local authorities to take certain action if they do not do so of their own accord.
I am delighted also that the hon. Member for Deptford has persuaded her party to support the Bill. All too often in this House, we shout yes while the Opposition shout no, and vice versa. In respect of this Bill at least we can all shout yes, and I hope that that is a growing trend.
I particularly welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) about the amendment that aims at improving the situation of the disabled. As to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister concerning Thalidomide victims, having read the newspaper features about Alison Wright, I was undecided

until I went on to read the various articles in the Evening Standard, when I was sure that the policy of my hon. Friend the Minister is the right one. It is true that hard cases make bad law, and my hon. Friend should be congratulated on resisting intense and emotional pressures to produce a result that would not necessarily be right when judged by the criteria decided after considerable consultation and a great deal of thought by many people.
The comment in the Evening Standard that it does not matter if 2 million people have orange badges was ridiculous, and on that point I part company with the hon. Member for Deptford. Of course it matters how many badges are issued. The more there are, the less valuable they become to those who have them. I accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that there should be stringent enforcement of the rules governing the issue of orange badges and severe penalties on those who breach them. However, to some extent it must also be a question of numbers.

Ms. Ruddock: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that there are about 6 million people with disabilities and that if it can be shown legitimately—I stress the word "legitimately"—that there is a real need for parking concessions for as many as 2 million people, we must accept it? The question must be need. We should not say that just because a person has not come forward or has not been identified as having a disability that is relevant to the need to have a car parking concession, he or she should not have it.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The question is not only need. The question is also balance. If so many people have orange badges that those who cannot walk are prevented from parking near enough to the places where they want to go, that damages everybody. If the 6 million people to whom the hon. Lady referred had orange badges—

Ms. Ruddock: That is not what I said.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I know that that is not what she suggested, but I am taking her argument to absurd extremes in order to demonstrate that there must be a balance. If all the 6 million had orange badges, the amount of car parking space that was available to those who cannot walk would be limited because of the pressure on space. Those who cannot walk must have an orange badge, but the basis has to be balance.

Ms. Ruddock: I thought the hon. Gentleman was reaching the point where he was failing to see that the entirely able-bodied would be put at a disadvantage and would have to park much further away from the places to which they wanted to have access.

Mr. Arbuthnot: That would be the right result. I hope that it will happen.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is vital to recognise that the Department and others are trying to work on the 6 million figure. We are not necessarily dealing with people who are travelling by car. The poor, the disabled and the elderly often have to travel by bus. The bus industry is involved in significant changes. There have been dramatic improvements, most of which were on display at the mobility road show to which, sadly, the media did not pay much attention. I invite the media to ask themselves what they can do by means of coverage that would help the greatest


number. Within the 6 million people, there are 1 million, or even more, who have difficulty in carrying shopping, either because they have no upper limbs or because their limbs do not work, for one reason or another. Within that group there are people who cannot walk. We need to solve the shopping problem. We need also to solve the problem of putting money into meters, which is where we return to the Lords amendment. We must also—here 1 thoroughly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is saying—pick out those who are faced with the greatest difficulty or with the impossibility of walking. For them the orange badge concession or facility is absolutely essential. If we cannot distinguish between that group of people and another group of 1 million or 2 million, we are not doing our job properly.
I understand why media interest is aroused. If the editor of the Evening Standard watches an ITN programme or sees an article in The Sunday Times which, because of pressure of space on the front page, was not as full as it might have been, one can understand how one quarter turn of a cog can lead to the editor of the Evening Standard saying, "All right, we're going to get at Bottomley." I do not mind if I am got at. What matters is that the 50,000 or the 500,000 people who most need the mobility advantage of the orange badge should get something of value out of a national scheme.

Mr. Arbuthnot: There is a look in your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, which leads me to believe that I ought to get off orange badges and turn to the question of local authorities.
The amendment may lead to a proliferation of signs that would be good for the information of motorists but would be bad if they led to motorists being distracted, particularly if those signs were as prominent as hon. Members have said today that they hope they will be. Too much information might be displayed. Companies can confuse their readers by providing too much information in their reports, with the result that nobody knows exactly where to look for the information that he or she wants. There could be the same problem outside car parks. The more eye-catching the notices outside car parks, the more dangerous they may be to drivers who may be distracted by them.
The amendment does not solve all the problems. It will not help motorists who are queuing on a ramp. There will still be pressure from motorists further down the queue, urging drivers in front of them to get on with it. If there is no queuing on the ramp, there will be queuing on the highway, which would be even worse.
Still, all things considered, it is a very good amendment, which we ought to accept, to a good Bill. Therefore I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent measure.

Mr. Kirkhope: We have had an extremely full, very interesting and though-provoking debate. I am sure that the Minister will take on board many of the points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope, therefore, that they will excuse me if I do not deal with a number of the points that they have made. I noticed that the Minister was scribbling away furiously during their contributions, so I have no doubt that any regulations that are proposed at any point will take their points into account.
It is appropriate, however, to pay tribute to a few hon. Members. I pay tribute first to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on having introduced his far-sighted private Member's Bill in 1986. It allowed me to climb on board his vehicle while it was still on the move—a potentially very dangerous thing to do. Nevertheless, it seems to have worked out quite well. I pay tribute also to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). One effect of the amendment will be to help disabled people. The right hon. Gentleman was the instigator of the very fine orange badge scheme, and I pay tribute to him for his helpful and thought-provoking remarks in the debate.
I pay tribute, too, to Lord Teviot who kindly agreed to steer the Bill through the other place. He did so with great flair and imagination. He made very helpful and constructive suggestions throughout its passage in the other place. Lord Teviot takes a great interest in transport matters and he displayed a similar interest in this measure, which he so kindly handled for me in the other place.
I am also grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the House who were kind enough to sponsor the Bill and to all hon. Members who have been good enough to contribute so constructively and helpfully to the debate, both on this occasion and on previous occasions. In particular I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) who has been so helpful. She is an Opposition Member. It underlines the fact that not everything that we do in this place has to be contested. There are certain issues on which all reasonable honourable Members of good will can combine and do something useful, to the benefit of a large number of people and to groups of people within that large number who particularly need help.
I mention also The Sunday Times. Every other hon. Member seems to have done so, but I do it in this light. I congratulate The Sunday Times on its Thalidomide victims campaign. It did an excellent job on that issue, as on other issues in the past. I hope that the slight differences of opinion that have been expressed this morning about the nature of its campaign on this general issue will not cloud the fact that nevertheless The Sunday Times has made a major contribution to the debate. I know that the Minister has also been involved in co-operating with the media generally. I hope that the co-operation will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) said that the card ought to be named after me. I said that this measure involves no losers, only winners. It would be taking things a little too far, and I should be sticking my neck out much too far, if his suggestion were to be adopted. Nevertheless, it was kind of my hon. Friend to make it. There may be occasions on which people will be able to glide into a car park, place their plastic card in the meter and go straight to their allotted space, with all the parking signs perfect and everything wonderful. They will get out humming to themselves and saying to themselves, "How wonderful that I've been able to use the Kirkhope card." But there may just conceivably be occasions—I admit that it is unlikely—when there is an enormous queue and an enormous hold-up. The machine is broken, the notice has fallen down, the car's tyres have gone flat or the petrol has run out as the car enters the car park and the driver will take a small card out of his wallet. I prefer not to say what he would say—or perhaps only in French.
I said that I would not deal with all the points that have been raised and I do not intend to do so, with the


indulgence of my hon. Friend. I shall mention only almost the last remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) who said that conceivably too much information could be provided. I accept what he says and I realise that there is some risk, but I would prefer to take that risk. It is very rare that we have too much information, and we would welcome having a little too much rather than far too little. I renew my invitation to the House to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Title

Lords amendment: No. 1, in line 1, leave out "repeal" and insert "amend"

12 noon

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Hunter: As is well known, the amendments apply to the long title of the Bill. If they are accepted, the amended long title will read:
A Bill to amend section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968.
Some words of explanation are needed as to why there is a need for these Lords amendments to be considered at such a late stage.
I support the arguments in another place and suggest that we first consider why the Bill has the wrong long title and then to consider why the amendments will make the long title the right title. Ironically, virtually the only controversy generated by the Bill has been centred on the long title. When the Bill received Third Reading on 14 April, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) acknowledged:
It is a small Bill, but it is an important amendment to existing legislation.
She continued:
the Bill is important in the context of air pollution."—[Official Report, 14 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 1161.]
Similar sentiments were expressed during the passage of the Bill through another place. On Second Reading, Lord Graham of Edmonton said that the intention of the Bill would receive a warm welcome from the Opposition Benches. Lord Mayhew made an interesting observation, expressing the opinion that it would be inappropriate for such a Bill to receive a Second Reading in another place without a word of support from the Democratic Benches. Throughout the proceedings in the House, there has been not one contribution from SLD and SDP Members on Third Reading or during debates on amendments. Today we note the total absence of SLD and SDP Members. In Committee in another place, Lord Tordoff, another Opposition spokesman, praised the Bill and declared total support from the Opposition. Nevertheless, there has been some controversy about the long title; hence the amendments from another place.
In moving that we accept the Lords amendments, let me first explain how and why the Bill came to have the wrong long title. The answer lies significantly in the origins of the Bill. The genesis of the Bill was a Government document entitled "Air Pollution Control in Great Britain: Review and Proposals", a consultation paper issued in December 1986 by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office. The sequel to that was "Air Pollution Control in Great Britain: follow-up to consultation paper issued in December 1986". It was issued in December 1988 by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office.
The beginnings of the controversy about the long title can be traced back to the consultation process. The introduction to the consultation paper states the following objectives:
In 1982 the Government decided that a comprehensive review of air pollution legislation should be undertaken. This was in part a response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's recommendations in its Fifth Report, that there should be new, comprehensive legislation to cover all aspects of industrial air pollution.
It set out conclusions from that review and invited comments on the proposals for action. One of those was:
to make certain other changes to the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968".
Clause 1 of the Bill relates to domestic smoke nuisance from private dwellings.
Paragraph 8 of the consultation paper is significant in understanding why the Bill has the wrong title. It states:
Under existing legislation, the emission of 'dark smoke' from chimneys of all buildings in all areas is forbidden. In areas subject to smoke control the discharge of any smoke is generally forbidden. In addition, smoke may be a statutory nuisance for the purposes of the Public Health Act 1936, except by virtue of section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 where it is emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling. There is no good reason why troublesome emissions of non-dark smoke from houses in areas not subject to smoke control should be exempt from control.
There follows the key sentence:
To remedy this it is proposed to repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956".
It was then believed that the repeal of section 16(1)(a) of the 1956 Act was necessary to close the loophole in that Act.
The paragraphs of the consultation paper dealing with clause 2 of the Bill—entitled "Dark Smoke from Industrial or Trade Premises"—proposed changes to the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968. Those paragraphs explore at length particular loopholes and weaknesses that were experienced by local authorities in bringing prosecutions. Paragraph 3 states:
The following amendments to the legislation are being considered in order to ease these enforcement problems
That is partly how the long title of the Bill came into being—from what was believed at the time of the consultative process to be necessary to close the loopholes in the Clean Air Acts; that was the repeal of part of the 1956 Act and the amendment of part of the 1968 Act. For reasons that I shall explain in a minute, it came to be realised that that was an incorrect analysis. It should not have been decided that it was necessary to repeal part of the 1956 Act and to amend part of the 1968 Act. On the contrary, all that was necessary was to amend both.
Why is the amendment necessary? When I introduced the Bill on 21 December, parliamentary counsel had not finished the first draft of the Bill—by no means, I am assured, an unusual state of affairs. There was a title, but there was no Bill. The Bill's long title was, as I have said, drawn from the terminology of the consultative process to repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and to amend section I of the Clean Air Act 1968, but the Bill itself did not exist. After introduction, parliamentary counsel produced a first draft of the Bill duly repealing section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956, as the title said it would.
My objective has been and remains the implementation of the consultative process conclusion that non-dark smoke emissions in areas not subject to smoke control should come under the ambit of the statutory nuisance provisions of the public health legislation. However,

parliamentary counsel realised that that objective was not best achieved by repealing section 16(1)(a) of the 1956 Act. So as not to depart from the consultation paper proposal, parliamentary counsel concluded that it would be better to retain part of section 16(1)(a). Thus, subsection (1)(a) required amendment, not repeal. The title of the Bill said the reverse. That meant that, at some stage, an amendment to the long title had to be tabled. Obviously, time would be spent in Committee, but the prospects of the Bill becoming law would be greater, so I thought, if the Bill had its Committee stage on the Floor of the House immediately after Second Reading.

Mr. Tony Favell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way while still in full flow. I, and I am sure other hon. Members, are riveted by this exposition. May we assume that the good people of Basingstoke will be thrilled by what is happening today, and that we can expect a pollution-free statue erected to my hon. Friend's memory?

Mr. Hunter: That is an attractive proposition, but my serious reply is that the provisions of the Bill will be immensely beneficial to many people. There are loopholes in existing legislation. This Bill closes them, and it will be greatly appreciated by many people throughout the country, not least my constituents.
The problem was amending the defective long title. Two options that were left were to do so in the Lords or by means of verbal amendment on Third Reading. It was originally put to me that the disadvantage of making the amendment in the House of Lords was the risk of delay. The Bill would have been lost if it had not returned to the House by today. Therefore, I took the unusual but entirely legitimate step of introducing the amendments by the verbal amendment procedure. The Bill is not controversial. The amendments simply ensure that the long title accurately reflects the contents of the Bill.
12.15 pm
On 14 April, Opposition Members spent more than four hours debating the verbal amendment procedure. To ensure that progress could be made, I was obliged to withdraw the amendments, and they were made in due course in another place on 8 June by the Earl of Portsmouth. I have made the point that the Bill has been welcomed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and by the Government and the Opposition in another place. It was not substantially criticised on Third Reading. The only controversy has centred on the long title. The amendments merely reconcile the long title with the body of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): All hon. Members will congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on clearly and authoritatively explaining the amendments. It is a Herculean task to introduce a private Member's Bill that will redress many grievances. Many citizens in this country, not only in Basingstoke, have every reason to appreciate my hon. Friend's efforts and persistence. Many of us are now rather the wiser about the detail of parliamentary drafting and the procedures of the House.
In so far as responsibility for the error in the original drafting lies within advice that was given by my own Department, I offer my hon. Friend a fulsome apology. It


has meant that this excellent, sensible, and practical measure, which will close some loopholes in the existing legislation, has been deprived of the full and thorough debate that many hon. Members would have liked it to have, because we have become deeply enmeshed in intricate drafting details. In so far as it affects the long title, it would have been disastrous if there had been any flaw in a Bill, which will play a thoroughly useful part in the campaign against air pollution.
On Third Reading, during a four-hour debate which ranged over several matters, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was able to fill much of his time with reminiscences, details and knowledge of a great many subjects. He recollected bicycling across London 40 years ago. To protect himself from smoke and pollution, he put gauze over his mouth. By the time he got to the end of his journey, the gauze was sooty and dirty, giving a clear sign of the pollution that then existed. We have made remarkable progress in the battle against pollution. The smogs that sent even the likes of me home from school early are now a thing of the past.
The amount of sunshine at Kew in the winter, which used to be double that for the centre of London, is now roughly the same as that in the centre at London. That is a clear sign of the way things have improved. Smoke emission have reduced by 85 per cent., and sulphur dioxide emissions have reduced by 50 per cent. It is not only visible forms of pollution that are being tackled, but many invisible forms, such as chlorofluorocarbons, in our battle to reduce the effects of greenhouse gases and climate change, the campaign to introduce tighter emission standards for cars, and the introduction of unleaded petrol. Many of those issues are global. My hon. Friend's Bill addresses some immediate and local grievances.
There have been long-standing complaints by the neighbours of emitters of non-dark smoke in non-smoke-controlled areas that they have no redress. Some years ago, one of my constituents had precisely that grievance. As a result of clause 1, together with the amendments that were introduced in the Lords, it will now be possible to take action against the emitters of non-dark smoke from dwellings in non-smoke-controlled areas. That is an important contribution. Like clause 2, that was supported by many hon. Members, especially Opposition Members.
There have been complaints from people throughout the country. One example given was bus burning in Barnsley. Complaints were made because there were no powers to take action against those burning buses on open ground of which they were not the owners. Furthermore, if that happened at night, it could not necessarily be proved that dark smoke was being produced. On the strength of the amendments made in the Lords, and together with clause 2, it will be possible at last to take the necessary action to redress that grievance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke is a distinguished and long-serving member of the Select

Committee on the Environment. He has particular expertise and knowledge about air pollution. He, more than many other hon. Members, is concerned to tackle questions of air pollution, on a global, regional, national or more immediate and local basis. Many people will have every reason to be grateful to him for closing these loopholes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and thank him for his persistence in seeing his Bill through the necessary stages. I hope that it will not be long before those who have been afflicted by this unpleasant problem will be able to take the necessary action on the strength of his endeavours.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: First, I must pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) who is unable to be here today. However, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will recall, my hon. Friend has expressed her personal support for the Bill.
On behalf of the Opposition I should add that we support the amendment. We are delighted to support any measure that will give us better air to breathe and will mean that our atmosphere is better protected, not only for human life, but for all other life on our planet, which we all now appreciate is so endangered by the emissions that we human beings produce.
I am happy to lend our support to the Bill. I shall take up no more of the time of the House, except once again to congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke and to say that we are delighted to support the reconciliation of his measure with its long title.

Mr. Hunter: I suspect that all hon. Members who secure a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills experience a mixture of relief and satisfaction when their Bill has finished its passage through Parliament. I assure the House that I am no exception.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for her comments, which I have received gratefully. I am delighted to have her support and that of her party for my Bill.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and her officials for the advice and guidance that they have given me during the past few months. I have greatly appreciated it. I feel a special debt of gratitude to the Clerks for their remarkable tolerance and patience in trying to help me and in explaining what I should be doing next.
The Earl of Portsmouth spent a great deal of time preparing and piloting through the Bill in the House of Lords. I understand that it was the first occasion on which he had done so, and I put on the record my sincere thanks to him.
This is a small but important Bill. It seeks to close two loopholes that have emerged in the Clean Air Acts over the years. The Government have responded responsibly to the need for action to combat air pollution. I am glad to have played a small part by introducing the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

REMOVAL FROM REGISTERS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—


"(a) that

(i) there is a dwellinghouse on the land and, if and so far as the land is not the site of that dwellinghouse, it is ancillary to that dwelling-house; or
(ii) the land is ancillary to a dwellinghouse which is not on the land; and

(b) that the requirements of paragraph (a) above have been satisfied at all times since 5th August 1945."

Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 7.

Mr. Favell: I am sorry that their Lordships have had to make what appear to be extensive amendments to this relatively short Bill. In my own defence, I should say that the Bill was introduced from behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, and that originally it appeared to have little chance of reaching the statute book. However, hon. Members of all parties have agreed that the Bill fulfils one of Parliament's roles in that it puts right a manifest wrong.
Thanks to a great deal of help from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) and her Department, and to the co-operation of the Opposition parties, especially from the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Miss Walley) and from Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Bill has been given a speedy passage through both Houses and now it is back before this House. I should also like to put on record my gratitude to Baroness Blatch, who guided the Bill so swiftly and competently through the other place.
The Common Registration Act 1965 required, for the first time, all commons, their owners and common rights, town and village greens to be recorded on registers to be maintained by county councils. That was an excellent and timely piece of legislation because commons were disappearing fast. As Kate Ashbrook of the Open Spaces Society, who does so much good work to conserve our commons has said in a recent booklet, commons
range from the huge heather uplands of Dartmoor and the North Pennines, to the crags of Snowdonia and the Lake District; from the Chiltern hilltops, ancient woodlands like Epping, Ashdown and the New Forest to alluvial meadows near Oxford and on the Cambridgeshire Ouse. The coast of Norfolk, the heaths of Surrey and Suffolk, and surburban lungs like Wimbledon and Clapham in London and the Strays of York are all commons.
Under the 1965 Act, 1·5 million acres of common land was registered, but unfortunately the three-year registration period was too short and much more land that should have been registered was not. There are other unresolved problems, such as the public's right of access to common land, which is yet to be determined.
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say in reply. The Government accept the case for further comprehensive legislation and I urge my hon. Friend that that be done, for the general good, as swiftly as possible.
However, there is an even more pressing and serious problem for the few. There is a problem for those 500 people whose houses and gardens were registered under the 1965 Act as common land by mistake. My Bill is directed at helping those unfortunate people whose plight was first brought to the attention of the House two or three years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in an Adjournment debate. He told the House about the plight of Mr. Casteliain, who owned what was once a coastguard's hut near Land's End, but which had been converted into a house many years previously. It was later discovered to have been registered as common land by mistake and consequently is virtually unsaleable.
12.30 pm
Many hon. Members will have read recently in The Times of the case of Mr. John Roe and his wife Irene, which I first came across through a solicitor colleague of mine who is in a practice to which I am a consultant. Mr. and Mrs. Roe live in a former vicarage on the moors near Hexham. Three years ago they decided to sell it, because Mr. Roe's health was none too good. Hon. Members can just picture Mr. and Mrs. Roe's concern when a prospective purchaser discovered that their home was registered as common land, and their absolute despair when they discovered that there was no provision under the 1965 Act to take their house off the register. Therefore, the prospective purchaser was not prepared to buy. That scenario has been repeated on several occasions since, and they have still not sold their house.
Under the 1965 Act anybody could go to the local authority and provisionally register what they believe to be common land. Indeed, local authorities, parish councils and interested individuals have registered land as common land. I registered some land as common land in my village of Edale, which is where the Pennine Way starts. Fortunately, it did not have a house on it. Land having been registered provisionally, the council then advertised the fact in local newspapers and, if no objections were received within two years, the registration became final. Alas, there is no machinery to get the land off the register once it is on—even if it was a mistake to register it in the first place.
My short Bill allows the removal from the commons registers of houses and gardens which have been used as such since 5 August 1945. It is a narrow Bill, but, as a private Member's Bill, it can be no other. I hope that, when comprehensive legislation is introduced by the Government, other injustices—there are others—can be remedied. There is, for example, the case of Mr. Paxton, who purchased a Methodist chapel in Cornwall. He converted it into a house, but he now cannot sell it because it is registered as a village green.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 make it clear that, if a house is registered but not its garden, the house can be removed from the register and vice versa. If part only of the house or part only of a garden is registered, that, too, can be removed. Amendment No. 4 deals with the manner in which applications are to be referred to a commons commissioner for determination.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Bill, as it went to another place, was a good Bill, but I understand that its defect was that it only allowed the deregistration of a house and garden where the site of the house, as well as the garden, was put on a common land register. There may have been some question that, if only the garden was registered, the Bill may not have allowed deregistration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) brought to my attention a specific case, which he has mentioned, to the House concerning a Mr. Paxton, who owns the old Methodist chapel in Trenarren. That case was originally taken up in the House by the late David Penhaligon and has since been pursed vigorously by his successor the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).
I understand that Mr. Paxton bought the old Methodist chapel in 1986, with the benefit of planning permission, to convert it into a dwelling house. Following that, he carried out the conversion to a high standard, and he intended to use it as his permanent residence. However, he discovered later that he would have to move because of his work and he, therefore, needed to sell the house. However, it is registered as common land. To have a chapel registered as part of a green is extraordinary. The piece of land on which the chapel was built is 30 ft below the level of the land to the north of the land which is called the Ledrah, which was properly registered as a village green. Unfortunately, the chapel should not have been registered. It is obvious that a chapel is not part of a village green.
Since the property was registered as part of the village green the council dealing with the matter has changed to Restormel district council. It cannot produce any documentation referring to what happened on the original application to register the chapel as part of the village green because that documentation is owned by its predecessor council.
Obviously evidence and common sense suggest that a chapel cannot be part of a village green. One cannot have people exercising rights of common land over a chapel, especially if it has been converted into a dwelling house which is lived in. Obviously the House should take some steps to put that right.
I am not sure whether the Bill operates to put the matter right regarding the old chapel in Trenarren. I do not know whether Mr. Paxton will benefit from the Bill or whether he will be prevented from doing so because of the stringent time limits, which I believe my hon. Friend has been forced to introduce into the Bill. If that is so, it is a great pity because Mr. Paxton should have the benefit of the sensible changes that my hon. Friend has suggested. The necessary legislation should be introduced in the future.

Mr. Favell: I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Paxton will be unable to take advantage of the Bill as it has been narrowly drawn, for obvious reasons. The Open Space Society and many others interested in common land are concerned that the existing arrangements should not be altered except to remedy obvious mistakes. For that reason the Bill was drawn to include only houses and gardens that were in existence in 1945. Unfortunately Mr. Paxton's house was a chapel then. If I had had the benefit of that obvious example earlier in our proceedings we might have been able to do something to help him. Alas, that example came to our notice relatively late in our deliberations. Even so, I believe that its inclusion may have given rise to objections from other interested parties as it

could have opened the flood gates for barns that have been converted into houses or are yet to be converted coming within my narrow Bill. I agree with my hon. Friend that the case he has highlighted must be dealt with. It is a complex procedure and when the Minister replies I hope that she will be able to tell us whether such cases could be dealt with when comprehensive legislation is introduced.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I am sure that Mr. Paxton will be saddened by his remarks. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend is right.
I accept that those who are interested in preserving common land should hold as much of that land as is rightly common land. Common land is a good thing and it should not be diminished, but in Mr. Paxton's case an obvious mistake has been made. If my hon. Friend is right, Mr. Paxton's Methodist chapel will not be rescued by the Bill and, therefore, it is possible that the usual village green activities could be carried on in the chapel. Mr. Paxton has had legal advice to confirm that. Clearly that is absurd and something must be done at some stage to put that right.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies she will be able to give us some assurances that that matter will be considered.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I am glad of this opportunity to debate the Lords amendments and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on introducing his Bill. This morning we have already learnt of the difficulties of negotiating the parliamentary processes. In this case my hon. Friend, perhaps assisted by his legal background, introduced the Bill at the back of the Chair and he has made speedy progress. It deals with a subject about which many hon. Members hold extremely strong views. Therefore, it is all the more praiseworthy that he has managed to obtain so much support and encouragement in bringing forward the Bill. There is no doubt that appreciation is also due to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who did so much in another place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, it was two and a half years ago that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) secured an Adjournment debate to draw to the attention of the House problems caused to people whose homes were incorrectly registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965. My hon. Friend referred to the 1·5 million acres that were registered under the Act, which was a magnificent achievement and an important step forward. However, inevitably there were areas where land was not registered or, as in this case, was wrongly registered. I am told that, in their enthusiasm, some individuals did not properly check or realise the long-term implications of registration when it came to buying or selling a property.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport referred to his own experience of a case in which an individual with whom his firm was associated was particularly badly afflicted. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) spoke of another case in which individuals are grievously affected by the unintended implications of what was an extremely important Act. My hon. Friend has made it clear that this matter will not redress the grievance to which he has referred. Others, such as those who live in what were


previously schools whose properties were wrongly registered are in a similar position. The problem does not merely concern chapels but, as has been stated, barns.
However, to cover all the details and grievances would be a task which even my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport might have found difficult to negotiate in a private Member's Bill. There is no doubt that those who had houses which were dwelling houses before 1945 had every reason to appreciate that my hon. Friend managed to limit the Bill's scope and, therefore, obtain agreement from all concerned.
The Department has been aware of the problem for some years. Shortly before the Adjournment debate to which I referred, the Common Land Forum report was published. It drew attention to the various types of incorrect registrations, including the one which the Bill hopes to redress. In the Adjournment Debate the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) recognised the injustice being suffered by these house owners and the need for early legislation on the subject. He recognised that the removal of incorrect registrations was part of the Common Land Forum's package of legislative proposals, on which the Government were about to go out to consultation, and that the forum was loath to see bits of its package taken out and dealt with separately.
There have been many calls for comprehensive legislation on commons. Hon. Members will be aware of the efforts taken to secure agreement on this important matter. We have not yet reached the stage where it is possible to reach agreement, in spite of the great efforts of the Countryside Commission and many others. However, the Department is considering the matter carefully and finding out when we shall be able to give a clearer indication of our intentions. There are agreements over many matters, but where differences exist, they are fairly entrenched differences of opinion.
The Bill does not enable all incorrect registrations to be removed. It does not cover agricultural land which may have been incorrectly registered or buildings, as my hon. Friends have said, which have been of a non-domestic purpose. However, by limiting the Bill's scope, my hon. Friend will make an important and helpful contribution.
The amendments that we are discussing will improve the Bill. Amendment No. 1 means that gardens can be considered on their own and will not have to constitute part of a house and garden. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make it possible to refer, on the basis of a commons commissioner's opinion, to only part of the land and not the full scope of the land originally brought to his attention. Lords amendment No. 4 states that the provisions of section 17(2) of the Commons Registration Act 1965 should be available so that the chief commons commissioner can allocate a commissioner and have an assessor to assist in the purpose. Under Lords amendment No. 7, the title will reflect the changes that have been made in the other place.
These are helpful, simple and uncontroversial amendments. The Bill is limited in scope, but is enormously important for those who have been affected by the inadvertent fall-out from the important 1965 Act.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: One of the benefits of coming to the House on a Friday and sitting on the Front Bench, sometimes without knowing that one will have to do so, is that one comes across extremely interesting subjects. This Bill falls into that category.
The protection of common land in Britain is extremely important and is dear to the hearts of most of us. Only when one finds, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) did, some significant exceptions and injustices is it right that there should be any tampering with that protection. We support the measure and the amendments.
We wish to express sympathy with the case of Mr. Paxton raised by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is an extraordinary example of the difficulties in which people can find themselves. Perhaps it will be a subject for another private Member's Bill. We sympathise with the Minister about the difficulties of introducing comprehensive legislation. This is a delicate matter and one on which it will be exceedingly difficult to reach agreement. However, I am pleased to be able to say that on this narrow measure where legitimate grievances have been demonstrated and where a cure can be found we are happy to support the Bill and the amendments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport on introducing the Bill successfully.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 2

REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 6, after "also" insert "(a)".

Mr. Favell: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 6.

Mr. Favell: Under Lords amendment No. 5, regulations will be made to provide for the type of evidence to be produced in support of an application for a property to be removed from the register. Obviously, it is important that before any common land is removed from the register the commons commissioner should be satisfied that all the requirements of the Bill are met. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will he able to lay regulations to ensure that that is done.
Lords amendment No. 6 is important because it ensures that any application for common land to be removed from the register is properly advertised and brought to public notice and hopefully to the notice of the Open Spaces Society. I will be lobbying my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. This is to avoid the reverse of the situation which led to houses and gardens being registered in the first place because some people did not know what was going on. The amendment will ensure that the public are now aware of what is going on and that organisations interested in such matters are aware of any such applications so that they can consider them before any deletion is made from the register.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: These amendments improve further the powers of the Secretary of State to ensure that they will cover all regulations that are to be considered,


which will be necessary when dealing with this problem. During our earlier discussion of the Bill, much was made of the steps that we had taken to advertise properly the fact that a property was to be deregistered. That difficulty emerged largely because of ignorance of the land in question. Some householders did not know that their houses and the gardens in which they stood had been registered as common land because it was not properly advertised. It follows that it is particularly important that during this three-year period, which will affect those homes registered as dwelling houses which existed before 1945, all the proper steps are taken to ensure that this is done fairly and effectively and all those affected are made aware.
It will be necessary to inform all the appropriate local authorities and we agree that the Open Spaces Society, on behalf of the amenity bodies, should be informed when it is proposed to deregister houses or gardens. Excellent progress has been made in drawing up the regulations. We are extremely keen to make these available at the earliest opportunity. We shall, we hope, shortly be consulting local authorities, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Law Society, the Open Spaces Society, the Countryside Commission, the Council on Tribunals and any others with a legitimate interest to ensure that the proper measures and all the necessary powers are in place.
We shall prescribe the form in which the objections must be made and make clear what is the necessary evidence that will be required to prove a case. We hope that, after sufficient consultation, it will be possible to lay regulations well before the end of this year. They will be subject to the negative resolution, but we very much hope that on the basis of this, and together with the further Lords amendments that increase the powers of the Secretary of State, it will be possible for the Bill to come into force effectively and usefully before the end of the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7 agreed to.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

REGISTER

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, at end, insert
are in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid to".

Mr. Michael Marshall: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5.

Mr. Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a word or two about these amendments, which reflect a good deal of important work carried out in the other place to bring this Bill back in a shape that I believe will commend itself to both sides of the House. The Bill was sent to the other place unopposed by this House, but it happened, for procedural reasons, that we did not have a chance to discuss some of its implications. Therefore, in supporting the amendments, it may be for the convenience of the House if I take the opportunity to highlight why I believe that the effect of carrying through these amendments, and those that follow, will be to highlight the activities of both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. In that regard, I am glad to see on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). He is my opposite number as the chairman of the executive committee of the CPA. Muzzled he may be by his Whip's duties, but alert and vigilant as ever he is on behalf of the CPA.
The amendments are needed for technical drafting reasons. The objectives of the Bill are to set up a register of publicly financed international parliamentary organisations that are in receipt of grant in aid, both for British and international secretariats. The additional words about grant in aid are included in the amendments to clause 1 and the title.
The elimination of any reference to the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Western European Union is in no way intended to reflect any criticism of those organisations. When the Bill was introduced, we were given technical advice that those three organisations should be included. Further advice, which coincided with the Bill going to another place, suggested that in two important respects—international secretariat and grant in aid provisions—there was a unique arrangement for the CPA and the IPU that did not relate to the three other organisations.
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to talk specifically about the CPA and the IPU. As is well known, on 29 June the IPU celebrated its centenary and Mr. Speaker unveiled a bust of Sir William Randal Cremer in the Members' Lobby. In the centenary year of an organisation founded by this Parliament and the French Parliament, it is splendid not only that a British parliamentarian has been honoured in that way, but that the bust of a Back Bencher


now appears in the Members' Lobby alongside the eminent figures who have occupied the office of Prime Minister
The IPU has always united all parts of the House. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have given great support to both the IPU and the CPA when there have been visiting parliamentary delegations. Your predecessor this morning—Madam Deputy Speaker—is a long-standing serving member of the CPA executive and will be chairing the women's parliamentary meeting at the IPU conference in September as part of the centenary activities. I also wish to welcome the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) to this debate. I have been corresponding with her because we are anxious to bring as many women parliamentarians as possible into the wider international dialogue provided through the IPU.
I wish briefly to deal with some of the activities relevant to both organisations, and I shall explain why they have been singled out in the Bill. The 1988 report of the executive committee of the United Kingdom branch of the CPA highlights the thrust and purpose of the organisation and the way in which it has built on its long establishment since 1911 when it was born—as the British Empire Parliamentary Association.
During the 37th parliamentary seminar in 1988, the United Kingdom played host to delegates from 22 Commonwealth legislatures, among whom where six presiding or deputy presiding officers and three Ministers. The seminars in London and Canterbury attracted a great deal of interest, and much valuable work was carried out. The parallel activity of a Commonwealth parliamentary visit later in the year attracted 20 legislatures. It gave Commonwealth parliamentarians an opportunity not only to meet their fellow parliamentarians in both British Houses of Parliament, but to visit Oxford, Birmingham and Edinburgh.
In all the CPA's wide international activities in 1988, we cannot ignore the fact that many of them were directed towards the recognition of Australia in its bicentennial year. To that end, the 34th Commonwealth parliamentary conference was held in Australia's splendid new Parliament building in Canberra. Those of us from the CPA and the IPU who were privileged to attend a number of events during the bicentennial, thanks to our Australian parliamentary colleagues, will recognise that one of the most rewarding aspects of the development of the CPA has been the growth not only of other Commonwealth Parliaments but their commitment to the CPA and their willingness to keep in touch and work with parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth, and especially those in the United Kingdom.
Others may wish to say more about the CPA, but, as chairman of the executive of the British group of the IPU, I shall concentrate on that organisation—not only in discussing our status along with the CPA, but our direct funding relationship with the Government and our willingness to volunteer for public accountability.
1 pm
I first presented this Bill—supported by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and, in the earlier stages, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson

Smith)—because, like them, I felt that the suggestion that either organisation was some kind of travel club should be countered head-on.
Over the years we have become used to the media idea that any attempt on the part of Members of Parliament to become better informed, to maintain a dialogue and to be in touch with Parliaments around the world is a joyride. Of course it has many pleasurable aspects, but that description is a travesty of the work that is actually done. The IPU deals with 112 countries, and must maintain relationships with those countries through the use of some 10 working languages in addition to English and French, the official languages of the IPU. It is a highly sophisticated organisation, involving parliamentarians from both Houses who must be well briefed. Both organisations are well served by small but skilled secretariats.
We are especially conscious that, particularly in our conference work in distant places, we draw considerably on the contribution of the learned Clerks. Of additional significance to the IPU is the work that they do twice a year, in parallel with us, at the conference of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliament. Both learned Clerks and parliamentarians play their part in our bilateral relations with those 112 countries, and have the opportunity to exchange notes.
The "travel club" idea is nonsense. That is clear when we consider the implications of the 1984 visit of Mr. Gorbachev, as he then was, to the United Kingdom, and appreciate the seriousness with which other countries have approached the IPU's work over many years. That applies particularly to the Third world and eastern Europe. When Mr. Gorbachev came to this country in 1984—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The debate is becoming very wide. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to tell us why the words in the Lords amendment should be inserted in the Bill. So far, he has not done so.

Mr. Marshall: As always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I bow to any ruling that you may make. I am simply trying to demonstrate the special nature of the two organisations, and to explain why they should be singled out for recognition and public accountability.
Part of the grant in aid mechanism in the Bill is devoted to expenditures that would allow, for example, a Russian delegation to visit this country in response to an invitation such as that tendered in 1984. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your usual benevolence, will entirely understand why I single out that visit. It was a fascinating example of a parliamentary organisation's establishing links which, in this instance, have led to a continuing dialogue as a result of the subsequent elevation of Mr. Gorbachev to higher things.
In 1986, funding of the kind that will be allowed in future under the Bill was provided to allow a delegation from the British Parliament to visit the Soviet Union, led by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). That ability to vary the compositions of delegation reflects another way in which the grant in aid provision will bring together not only Parliament but Ministers and Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. The Bill's grant in aid provision rightly reflects Parliament's willingness to assist the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen of the day to play an active role.


That is why I paid particular tribute earlier to the hon. Member for Swansea, East, who serves on the executives of both organisations and who, despite his onerous responsibilities as an Opposition Front Bencher, clearly sees his IPU duties as an important part of his work. We welcome that.
I shall touch briefly on one or two other aspects of the IPU's other work. There has been recent mention of the proposed British-Irish parliamentary body, about which a more formal announcement will, we hope, be made shortly. It will consolidate our continuing and long-standing dialogues, which take the form of exchange visits and conferences with our Irish parliamentary colleagues. For 23 years, the IPU's dialogue with the Guatemalan Parliament was Britain's only link with that country. My hon. Friend the Minister nods, because on other occasions he has been good enough to recognise that maintaining links by the public funding of parliamentarians has in a number of cases led directly to the restoration of what might be called normal international relations.
At the IPU's centenary conference in September there will not only be debates about problems affecting the peaceful use of space, about world food, population and indebtedness but an opportunity for bilateral dialogues with many countries in addition to the conference proceedings themselves. In that connection, those of us who were responsible for bringing the People's Republic of China into the IPU will recognise the opportunity that that conference will provide for particularly timely and significant discussions with Chinese parliamentarians.
One could cite many other examples of the work that is in hand and which is continuing. The Argentinian dialogue has been maintained when, for various reasons, the Government have been unable to continue it themselves. It can fairly be said that the changes to the Bill will highlight the determination of both bodies to continue a process that has developed over many years. In the case of the IPU, I suggest that it is not unreasonable to back President Gorbachev's arguments in his book "Perestroika", to the effect that a factor in international diplomacy is a parliamentary link. It is that parliamentary diplomacy which is highlighted by the Bill.
The Bill reaches the parts that Governments cannot reach, and one cannot avoid drawing the conclusion that, from time to time, it is useful to one's country to show people from outside it the constructive work that Parliament undertakes—drawing as of necessity it must, on the support and involvement of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I always find it particularly fascinating to observe how parliamentarians from this House and from the other place work together when they are thousands of miles from home. Perhaps that is a lesson for us all back here.
Finally, I refer to the work of the other place in presenting the amendments before this House today. We are very much obliged to Viscount Montgomery of Alamein for having piloted the amendments through the other place. He was supported by Lady David, an executive member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Further support came from Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Official Leader of the Opposition in the other place. I am grateful also for the support of Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and of

the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The proposals that they have endorsed have met with widespread support both from the Government and from all political parties.
In commending this group of amendments to the House, I reflect on the fact that later amendments will be consequential. For the convenience of the House I am trying to encompass as much of the argument as I can in the debate on the first group of amendments.
The Bill, and the amendments, are a small but important step towards trying, even if it is only once in every 100 years, to go public on the kind of work that we do in private, away from the glare of publicity. I hope that it puts into context the real essence of much of our parliamentary work. I pay tribute to all those who have sustained the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Whatever work we may embark on during the next 100 years—for example, in the release of political prisoners, in drugs control or fighting terrorism—I feel certain that the strength and support that we have enjoyed until now will continue to be a feature of our parliamentary life. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I warmly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), which dealt with an ideal objective. As he said, the aims and objectives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are to achieve an all-party approach to vast international problems. He referred to the purposeful work being done by the two organisations. It has led to the creation of what we call a dialogue of diplomacy. The exchange of views, which has taken place over many years now, has had an influence in the corridors of power in many countries. I hope that implementation of the aims and objectives of the amendments will be as effective and as long-standing as the two associations hope.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has said about the Bill. We are happy to support it and to give it a fair wind. It is a useful measure. All hon. Members are well aware of the important work done by the IPU and the CPA. The measure will help to bring out into the open some of the valuable work that they do.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) when he spoke to the amendments. He made some very valid points. I accept that there are technicalities which make the position of the other organisations to which the amendments refer—the WEU, the Council of Europe and the NATO Assembly—somewhat different. As we all know those organisations provide valuable sources of contact between parliamentarians and have done some useful work over a number of years and continue to do so.
I note with interest what the hon. Gentleman said about the Bill's particular relevance to Opposition Members, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have been associated with the hon. Gentleman in his efforts today. I should put it on record that the Opposition value the contacts that those organisations provide, which can be maintained over a number of years and lead to a great deal of insight into the concerns and special situations of our parliamentary colleagues in many different parts of the world. I support the measure and give it fair wind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Eggar): May I say on behalf of the Government how delighted we are to have the opportunity to discuss the Bill this afternoon. I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) who consistently, quietly and over a long time has managed to surmount and avoid all the various obstacles that have confronted him—both procedural and imposed by Whitehall for various arcane reasons that neither he nor I fully understand—and to get the Bill back here. That is a considerable achievement. I would have said that he has done so single-handedly, had I not heard the speeches by Opposition Members and had I not read with great interest and heard about the debate in another place.
My hon. Friend paid tribute to Viscount Montgomery and Members in another place, who as members of the executive committee of the IPU or the CPA have contributed to the smooth passage of the Bill.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant), who has managed to combine his unheard activity on the Front Bench with splendid chairmanship of the CPA. I, too, pay tribute to that.
The Government have no problem with the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel. I offer him an apology as advice that he received on the original drafting of the Bill proved subsequently to be incorrect and led to the need to introduce the amendments in the other place and to bring them back here.
It is fitting that the Bill should be getting a very strong wind behind it in the House in the centenary year of the IPU. I know how very hard my hon. Friend has worked in gathering together the various strands that will make the conference to be held in London in September a unique and uniquely successful event. I am delighted that Mr. Speaker and his colleagues, including Madam Deputy Speaker, will be closely associated with the centenary events in September.
The hon. Members for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) and for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) have rightly and understandably expressed the importance that we attach to the exchange of parliamentarians, both within the Commonwealth and in the context of the CPA—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister's remarks are wide of the narrow terms of the Lords amendment that we are supposed to be discussing. I very much hope that he will get back to it.

Mr. Eggar: I appreciate your concern, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should remain in order, and I will certainly endeavour to do so.
We are talking about the substance of the Bill. The effect of the amendments is to limit the compass of the Bill to the IPU and the CPA. We very much regret that, for technical reasons, the other organisations must be excluded from the Bill. My hon. Friend has explained the reason for that. As a result of the amendments, we are left

with the Bill mentioning the CPA and the IPU. The work that those two organisations do in the exchange of parliamentarians of all parties and of all member countries of the CPA and the IPU is widely welcomed and recognised. That is why the Bill should be introduced and why the two organisations should be mentioned. There should be an obligation on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to come to the House every year with the names of the organisations covered by the Bill, namely the CPA and the IPU, and the amounts of money that are being made available by the Government to fund them.
The exchange of parliamentarians is to be widely welcomed. My hon. Friend has already mentioned the importance of continued dialogue with parliamentarians from Guatemala and the existing dialogue with parliamentarians in Argentina. He drew attention to the important visit by Mr. Gorbachev, as he then was, when he came here under the auspices of the IPU. Examples such as those justify the expenditure of public money on those two organisations.
I thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Again I pay tribute to the tremendous work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel on getting the Bill this far. I have no hesitation in welcoming the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Schedule

REGISTER OF ORGANISATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, leave out line 4.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
I remind the House that the previous debate has substantially covered a good deal of the ground of these amendments. It was in that respect that I showed tolerance to the House.

Mr. Marshall: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House unduly. The amendments are consequential. They delete three organisations: the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Western European Union. The reasons for the difference between those organisations and those that remain in the Bill, the CPA and the IPU, are now apparent to the House. Looking to the next century of IPU, I should like to see an opportunity to increase and improve co-operation and collaboration between the IPU and the CPA, the two organisations which will formally be recognised in the Bill. However, I would not wish to rule out any links that could be maintained with the other three organisations to which, in a sense, we are sadly saying farewell in statutory terms.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Citizens' Compensation Bill

[As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.]

Clause 2

BEREAVEMENT DAMAGES

Mr. James Arbuthnot: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 23, after 'parents,' insert
'provided that the deceased was a minor who never married.'
It is right to set the background to the Bill before charging straight in to a consideration of the amendment. Clause 2 extends the categories of people who would be entitled to bereavement damages. Bereavement damages are damages payable purely for the grief suffered because of a person's death. They must be distinguished from damages that are payable to those who are dependent on the person who has died. I stress that the damages referred to in the Bill are damages to compensate for grief.
One can take the view that it is degrading to human nature to turn the grief that one feels at bereavement into money. Indeed, I take that view. However, bereavement damages have been well established for a long time. Because, as the law of our country stands at the moment, it is accepted that there should be bereavement damages, we should decide to whom those damages should be payable.
As I have said, I take the view that bereavement damages are not justifiable because payment for grief is something that I cannot understand. I made that point on Second Reading and that view is generally accepted, but not by everybody. I find it difficult to express what the death of a person is worth because of the grief suffered. If someone close to one dies, no money can compensate for the loss of that person.
However, if we accept bereavement damages, it follows not only that the class of person who is entitled to those damages should be severely restricted, but that the amount of money available to those people should be severely restricted also. Any amount of bereavement damages that is more than a token or a nominal small amount would make one feel that one had profited by the death of the person who had died. That would be a bad thing.
If one is restricting the class of people who would be entitled to bereavement damages, one must consider the existing law and the people who are entitled. It is a pretty odd list. The statute sets out that bereavement damages should be for the benefit

"(a) of the wife or husband of the deceased; and
(b) where the deceased was a minor who was never married—


(i) of his parents, if he was legitimate; and
(ii) of his mother, if he was illegitimate.

Today that sounds pretty odd because it makes an invidious and unpleasant distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children when in our other legislation we are tending to reduce those distinctions as much as possible and are trying to remove any stigma that there might once have been because of the acts of one's parents over which one had no control.
It sounds an odd list and there could well be some justification for changing it. However, one must do so according to the list of people who might most arguably suffer by the loss of their parents. Obviously, one cannot

say that a father of a legitimate child will suffer any more than the father of an illegitimate child. There are difficulties under the present list of proving that the father of an illegitimate child is actually the father. However, with people living together outside marriage more and more, that is becoming a decreasing difficulty.
1.30 pm
We must categorise the list of people entitled to bereavement damages in one way or another. Any categorisation of such people will be fraught with difficulties. One difficulty will be that some people whom most of us think should be included will be left out, and those whom people think should be left out will be included. Our approach should be to recognise that there are major difficulties about that area of the law and that, whatever we do, we are unlikely to get it finally perfectly right.
Any extension of the list of those who would be entitled to bereavement damages should be done slowly and gradually. It should, perhaps, lag a little behind public opinion rather than leaping ahead of it. Our proper approach should be to look at the list of those who are entitled now to bereavement damages, and then to consider which person is most obviously left out. That was dealt with in another place in 1982 by Lord Mishcon, when he moved an amendment to the Administration of Justice Bill. He said words with which I have to agree. He said:
there are several categories of people who are entitled in regard to the bereavement claim but, as I tried to submit on a previous occasion, the one obvious claimant has been omitted. It is the unmarried minor child, who one thinks is possibly the person who will the most miss the parent from the point of view of actual loss, only in the sense … sometimes a surviving spouse can find some kind of relief, contentment and indeed happiness, in a remarriage, whereas a child can never regain a parent who has been lost."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 1982; Vol. 429, c. 1109.]
Some people ask why I have put forward the amendment to limit the increase to a minor who has never married. My reason for doing so is that the minor who has never married is probably the person who is most likely to suffer the loss of a parent. Those who are older tend to suffer less, perhaps because of other relationships that they are able to form—more open and less exclusive relationships than one naturally has with one's parent when one is a child. I suggest that this is the right way in which to limit the clause.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is at least consistent in his criticisms of personal injury compensation and the category of persons who receive it. On Second Reading he made similar points and I and other hon. Members tried to reconcile them. We have never denied that the amount of money payable in such circumstances is incalculable. We have said consistently that there must be recognition of that fact, because recognition has been given in other elements of our law, when dealing, for example, with a person's injured reputation. One cannot compare the £300,000 and £1 million awards that are given by the courts for injured reputation with those given for injured bodies—or the psychological impact, which brings about nervousness and in many other ways affects people who are bereaved because of accidents.
Some people argue that because the loss that a bereaved person suffers is beyond compensation, there should be no award. As I have asked many times before, how can we


adequately compensate people for the loss of a member of their family? Today I have been given some illustrations of the sort of claimants who should be included—the categories that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford talked about. If a bereaved person believes that financial compensation will help him recover from the tragedy, he should be allowed to seek compensation. It should be his choice to decide whether or not to claim and how to use it.
I wish to fill in the background to the Bill as that is necessary to understand the amendments. When I introduced my Bill I received massive all-party support, which was exciting. Some 260 hon. Members committed themselves to supporting the Bill through organisations, mainly the Citizen Action Compensation Campaign. Many hon. Members of high regard and great reputation supported the Bill.
It is with some regret that I risk placing on record my anger and dismay at the Government's conduct throughout the Bill's passage. I was forced by a lack of time for private Member's Bills severely to curtail the Bill. I did so openly, accepting in good faith what Ministers said to me in Committee, in order to give the Bill the best possible chance of reaching the statute book. I have given the Government every opportunity to agree to what is now a simple measure. I took four clauses out of the Bill to accommodate them and to avoid dividing the all-party support. Through negotiation and mutual respect for each other's view we could have retained a sensible and just portion of the Bill, which would have received the unanimous approval of the House.
The Bill would have a substantial effect on the quality of life of the injured and bereaved. I accept that the Minister has tried to accommodate actuarial problems, but unfortunately he seems to have set his face against extending the categories of people entitled to bereavement damages. That is mirrored by the amendments of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
Recent disasters have illustrated the urgent need for a review of existing law. One of my constituents died at Hillsborough. He was 18 and his parents will not receive a single penny because of the artificial distinctions in the law. I have since learnt that another family is in the same position. Their son was two months over 18.
The problem does not affect only those who have, unfortunately, been caught up in the recent spate of disasters. A pensioner was devastated by the loss of her 40-year-old daughter who suffered from Down's syndrome. She died after a locum doctor had wrongly administered heroin to her as a painkiller. That pensioner's claim is worth £80 for funeral expenses. It is highly likely that legal aid will be withdrawn because of the potential costs of her action. Her barrister has said that she feels that
the core has been taken out of her life".
The mother feels that the doctor:
took her life and ruined mine
That women is being denied access to justice. That is why this issue is so crucial and I cannot understand the lack of compassion displayed about such examples.
People caught in the trap are systematically denied access to justice. In many cases such action is the only way in which people can hold the person responsible to account, but the Minister will not move on this. Why should a child be prevented from claiming for the death of its parents? Surely a child feels such a loss much more than

anyone else, as parents mean the world to their children. Some people argue that because a child is financially dependent on its parents it will be able to make a claim. What if the parents are unemployed or chose to stay at home to bring up the family? In those circumstances a child may not be able to claim. Further consideration should be given to the cases that I have described.
My Bill was designed to solve such problems and, by doing so, it would have implemented the recommendations of the Pearson royal commission which was established specifically to examine compensation for personal injury. It recommended that an unmarried minor child should be able to recover damages.
My Bill would also tackle the inconsistency between English and Scottish law. It is absurd that a child who is most likely to feel the pain and suffering that I have described should be prevented from making a claim. The Administration of Justice Act 1982 provides a much wider scope for claiming damages. It states that the spouse, parents, children, a person accepted by the deceased as a child and any person who, immediately before the deceased's death, lived with the deceased as husband or wife may claim.
Why have one law for Scotland and one for England? That is inconsistent and it deprives people of a common form of justice. My Bill would have brought equity to the four countries of the United Kingdom. If the bereaved believe that compensation will help them to recover from the accidental death of a relative that feeling should be recognised.
In Committee we discussed the amount of compensation to be awarded. I am sure that the Minister, with the best intentions in the world, will make a statement and, I hope, a commitment, on the Government's recognition that bereavement damages should be increased. I await to see whether he is prepared, in any shape or form to dot the i's and cross the t's after the commitment has been made regarding the amount concerned. We have received hundreds of letters, especially from the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman anticipating later amendments? It is hard to relate his remarks to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Cunliffe: If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember, I mentioned that I had to go through some of the Bill's background to try to illustrate what the amendment meant in the broadest sense of the word, and I shall try to do that.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has referred to the category which we are describing. The Bill's sponsors and I feel deeply about that. There is another category of person which should be included. I know of a case in which a family lost their 16-year-old daughter when a coach jumped a red light and hit a van in which she was travelling. The driver was prosecuted, convicted, fined £500 and had his licence suspended for a year. The mother cannot believe that the claim was worth only £3,500.
I wait with anticipation for the Minister to make some remarks about the stage we have reached and the confusion which has now arisen due to attempts by him and his Department to introduce legislation on the actuarial line. Unfortunately, that cannot be discussed too much in the House simply because of Mr. Speaker's ruling.
Throughout this period there has been a degree of confusion—I would not say trickery or deceit—which has misled some of us. We thought that there were some aspects of the Bill towards which the Government were sympathetic and would seek to support through some other procedure. My Bill has, in the main, been hijacked all along the line. I am sorry to have to say that I do not believe that, so far, my Bill has been treated under the Queensbury rules. It has been totally decimated. I deeply regret that the Government have sought not to recognise some of the valid arguments put forward by my associates and me in support of the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in expressing deep sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) on his bereavement this week and our understanding of his difficulties in preparing for today's debates on his Bill.
The amendment is the first of a series tabled by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) which, taken together, would kill this important Bill stone dead. They are almost all deeply objectionable amendments and are widely seen as both hurtful and offensive to many victims of extreme adversity who look to this House for hope and for practical help. They include the families of those who died in the Bradford fire, at Hillsborough and in other recent disasters. That the compensation they can expect under the law as it now stands is unacceptable to the British people is borne out by the voluntary offers in the Zeebrugge, King's Cross and Clapham disasters of almost three times the legal maximum. Any figure will be arbitrary, but the House must now listen to what more and more bereaved families are saying to us about the derisory levels of compensation available to them under the law, which this Bill seeks importantly to amend. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has been highly co-operative in his approach to the Solicitor-General's suggestions about changing the original drafting of the Bill. They were mostly extremely painful suggestions to my hon. Friend in that they involved the deletion of important sections of his Bill. He hoped, and was fully entitled to hope, that his reward would be an agreed measure of more limited but still valuable help to people who suffer bereavement or disability with inadequate compensation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. However, any impression that any deletions from the Bill and the dropping of the first four clauses owes anything to a suggestion from me is mistaken and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh thought that he was seeking to accommodate the difficulties put to him by the Solicitor-General and some of his hon. Friends. It was not my hon. Friend's intention to remove from his Bill any of its very important provisions and principles which were sacrificed. He felt that he was co-operating with the Solicitor-General. He has made it clear this afternoon that he is angered and dismayed about the loss of very important parts of the Bill as originally drafted. Instead of any reward for my hon. Friend, it is now proposed from the Conservative Benches that this Bill—already seriously weakened by amendments which he

felt forced to concede—should either be effectively destroyed or talked out today. The Bill has been boned and boiled down almost to the point of invisibility and is now to be buried.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: I will give way later. It is an utterly disgraceful story of contempt for our efforts to help needful people in which the Solicitor-General can surely take no pride.

The Solicitor-General: I shall confine myself to simply saying that the right hon. Gentleman is making unjustified allegations. The central part of the Bill—it is no longer part of the Bill—was dropped by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for whom I have the greatest sympathy, because of the time constraints which inevitably affect a private Member's Bill which tries to deal with a wide subject on which there is no agreement. It was never suggested that there was agreement on the compensation board. The right hon. Gentleman will have done me the courtesy of reading my long speech on Second Reading in which I made that perfectly clear. I have taken great trouble to meet the Bill's sponsors and discuss this matter. They know and recognise that. It is not right for the right hon. Gentleman to say what he does but I shall expand on that when I speak more fully.

Mr. Morris: I heard the Solicitor-General's speech on Second Reading. It followed my speech on that day and I listened with very great care to all that he said. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh did not want to drop the compensation board. He was reluctant to sacrifice any part of his Bill. My hon. Friend's position was that his Bill was already inadequate to meet all the problems it addressed. He was in fact hoping that the Solicitor-General might come forward with helpful additions to what was being proposed in the Bill. I can tell the Solicitor-General that my hon. Friend in sacrificing very important provisions of the Bill, did so in the expectation that there would be an agreed measure. He hoped to see his Bill, or some version of this very important measure, on the statute book. I am saying now that there is scant likelihood that, at the end of the day, anything will emerge to help the people he is concerned to assist.
It was a humanitarian initiative, which has been frustrated by the debates that we have had here and upstairs. Even as originally drafted, the Bill was but a first step in the right direction, yet it is a step too far for the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
It must be strongly emphasised in this debate that the Bill, as originally drafted, attracted widespread support from over 50 national legal, medical and voluntary organisations. They include the Haemophilia Society, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, MIND, the National League of the Blind and Disabled and the Spinal Injuries Association. They are all now being told that they were asking too much, and to put up with existing law, with which even judges themselves are manifestly unhappy. Listen again, for example, to Mr. Justice Hirst's challenge to this House. He said, in reference to the Opren case, that both the assessors and the


courts had been obliged to base their awards on the levels of damages established by legal precedent, which is binding in law. He went on:
There is nothing wrong with critics questioning or condemning these levels, so long as they recognise that only parliament can change them … So long as the present levels remain in force, the Courts have no alternative but to apply them.
That was widely read as a direct challenge to parliament to untie the hands of judges. My hon. Friend's Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's speech is wide of the terms of the amendment before the House, which deals with the exclusion of unmarried minors from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Morris: I am of course going to speak about exclusions. I wanted to remind the House of the very important statement made by Mr. Justice Hirst. He was delivering a pointed challenge to the House. It is a statement that deserves a reply from the Solicitor-General as well as from me.
In regard to amending the extensions of the categories of claimants I believe, with my hon. Friend, that it is totally unacceptable for the Minister to have refused to budge on this issue. His stance has clearly encouraged the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford to table what can only be described as amendments which aim to destroy the essential principles of my hon. Friend's Bill. As my hon. Friend said, recent disasters have illustrated the urgent need for a review of the existing law.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I hope that, on reflection and on re-reading my speech on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman will realise that I needed no encouragement, and that I did not think that the Bill met the concerns that he, quite rightly, now expresses.

Mr. Morris: I speak with some experience of sitting on both sides of the House. I am certain that the Solicitor-General's stance must have given encouragement to his hon. Friends. After all, they support the Government. I regret very much that we are in the position now of losing a measure that is extremely important on humanitarian grounds.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman must take stock. Nothing to which he can point suggests that I encouraged the dropping of the first four clauses of the Bill or that I encouraged any extension of the categories of people who are entitled to claim bereavement damages. My position is that which the House agreed after a full debate in 1982, at which time the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. I have always upheld that position and I have never given any sign that the Government would broaden the categories. I have always said that we thought that the categories chosen in 1982 were right. I have had no suggestion that the clauses were dropped on the understanding that we would broaden the categories, and I know that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) would not make any such suggestion.

2 pm

Mr. Morris: I said that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh did not want to lose any part of the provisions in the Bill as originally drafted. I shall give way to him, so that he can explain his attitude on this important matter.

Mr. Cunliffe: The signal was quite clear. At one stage we were told, in essence, that the Government would steamroller the Bill if the compensation advisory board was kept intact. It was suggested that we could discuss other elements of the Bill that would give some recognition to the principles that I have been trying to establish. For example, on the question of bereavement damages, the Solicitor-General constantly said that the Government would consider uprating them. That is why I asked in my speech whether he would dot the i's and cross the is on the financial awards that the Government would be prepared to accept.
The question of time arose in Committee because this is the last Friday when private Members' Bills can be debated. If I had chosen to debate all the clauses, the Government would have adopted the tactic of talking me out. I thought that the Government were showing some sympathetic signs, and with respect to both the Solicitor-General and my right hon. Friend, I certainly did not think that there was any confusion. Although no assurances were given, there were certainly suggestions that the Government would be helpful. Indeed, the word "helpful" was used constantly during our discussions.

Mr. Morris: The Solicitor-General has heard what my hon. Friend has said. He clearly had the impression that in trying to co-operate with the Solicitor-General he would arrive at an agreed measure. My hon. Friend has not dissimulated in any way. He is a passionately concerned about those who could have been helped by the Bill as originally drafted.

The Solicitor-General: May I join the strands together? I said that I hope to be extremely helpful to the hon. Gentleman in three ways, and I am sure that he would acknowledge that. First, I said in Committee that we would consult with a view to uprating the level of bereavement damages, which has not been updated since 1982. When I come to reply to the debate on these amendments, I intend to confirm the Government's position on that.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman and I together considered ways to make a small but significant advance in the use of actuarial tables approved by the Government Actuary for compensation claims. It is only the understandable rules of the House that prevent us from dealing with that matter today. In fact, through the kindness of Mr. Speaker, we raised that matter earlier on a point of order. When I reply to the debate, I shall, within the rules of order, briefly clarify the position.
Thirdly, we hope to make some progress on a feasibility study for a no-fault compensation scheme for minor road accidents. I hope that there will be a little time available to debate that.
I have always sought to use this valuable private Members' legislative time to be as constructive as possible, but when I have not been able to do that, I have always made the position absolutely clear. I hope that hon. Members will accept that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that we can now get back to considering amendment No. 12.

Mr. Morris: I shall reply only briefly to that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since I fully agree with you about relevance. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh approached me—as a Member of Parliament who


had taken three private Members' Bills to the statute book—about timing. He would have liked to take an earlier day, but delayed in an attempt to secure agreement with the Government.

Mr. Cunliffe: I did so simply because 5 May had been chosen as the date for the Committee stage to begin. To benefit from the flexible approach to the principles of the Bill that the Government were showing at the time and that the Solicitor-General has now evinced, I delayed until the final day for private Members' Bills.

Mr. Morris: By delaying, of course, my hon. Friend reduced his chances of legislating on this important matter.
Let me return to the extension of claimant categories. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that people need to be able to hold to account those responsible for their bereavements. Surely the Solicitor-General will accept the force of that argument when he replies. Accountability is the central issue: if people feel that someone must be held accountable for the death of a close relation, they should not be separated from justice by artificial barriers and distinctions and also, indeed, by the law's delay, which has been strongly criticised by the Lord Chancellor himself.
I hope that the House will reject the amendment without too much more delay today.

The Solicitor-General: The purpose of the amendment is to provide that, in respect of a parent's claim for the loss of a child, the deceased must have been a minor who never married. The amendment—which we are formally discussing, as you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker—would retain the current provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, as amended, and the Administration of Justice Act 1982.
In supporting the amendment, I am maintaining what has been the Government's position throughout. I shall return to my reasons—briefly, because I think that the House wants to proceed to the debate on no-fault compensation schemes—but I should like to make a couple of points first.
Your indulgence has been sought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow discussion of bereavement compensation levels. I should make it clear, as I did in Committee, that seven years have elapsed since the level of bereavement damages was fixed at £3,500, whether one claimant or 10 sought damages. The Government accept that there is a good case now for considering whether a higher level would be appropriate, and I am pleased to tell the House, as I told the Committee, that the Lord Chancellor is to hold consultations on whether to raise the level.

Mr. Cunliffe: Will the consultations be with the organisations which have given me such invaluable help with my Bill? Will public and voluntary organisations, victim support groups and bodies such as CRUSE be consulted?

The Solicitor-General: There is no limit to the categories of interested parties that may be consulted, and I see no reasons why organisations such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentions should not be included among them. I hope that interested persons will read of our debate and that those holding views on how the uprating should take place will make them known. As a result of the hon.

Gentleman's intervention, they have an opportunity to participate in the consultations. I hope also that appropriate bodies will be approached for that purpose. They may include insurance interests. I refer not only to insurance companies but to those who are insured as motorists or against household accidents, and in all our multifarious roles as citizens.
Once those consultations have been completed, a further announcement will be made about any appropriate increase. We are thinking of a time scale that is not overlong, and hope to make substantial progress toward an announcement during the course of this year. I hope that is of comfort to the hon. Member for Leigh.
The debate really concerns categories of claimants. I hope that the House accepts that I have never given any encouragement for believing that the Government will accept any widening of the categories of claimants as opposed to an increase in the level of bereavement damages. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leigh nodding, because I would not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I have sought to make progress in the other areas that I mentioned in my earlier intervention.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's co-operation and for the constructive discussions that I have held with representatives of the Citizens Action Compensation Campaign. They have been placed in the difficulty that confronts anyone seeking to operate through a private Member's Bill—shortage of time. They took the decision that they considered to be right, but it should not be thought, and it would not be correct to say, that I led them on to do anything other than that which I have clearly described today. I sought to make progress to the utmost of my ability and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in considerable detail.
I turn to my reasons why the amendment should be accepted. The existing clause 2(2) goes beyond anything recommended by the Law Commission or the Pearson Commission. Those two great commissions did not agree. They held different views, just as Scotland did. Nevertheless, neither of those two great commissions, which we asked to apply their minds to the categories of citizens who should be entitled to claim bereavement damages went as wide as clause 2.
The amendment will revert to the existing provision in respect of the age of eligible children. The reasons for accepting the amendment are compelling. To proceed without it will give parents the right to bereavement damages whatever the age of their children. Of course difficult judgments have to be made when legislating. If a son or daughter is a few weeks below the age of 18 rather than an adult just a few weeks older, a sad case can be made. Unamended, however, the clause would give parents the right to bereavement damages whether their offspring was 30, 40, 50, 60, or whatever age lit the time of death.
The amendment would re-instate the present law, which introduces a proviso that is in two parts. The children in respect of whom a claim is made must be minors, and they must be minors who never married. A minor who married will have developed less close links with his parents because the centre of his affection will have been his new family. That point was brought out by my noble and learned Friend the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, when that aspect was debated in Committee on the Administration of Justice Act 1982, col. 1298 of the House of Lords Hansard for 30 March 1982.
2.15 pm
It is also important to emphasise that children may have a loss of dependency claim. I do not wish to prolong the debate on this amendment because I know that hon. Members want to deal with the next one. For those reasons, I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

COMPENSATION WITHOUT PROOF OF FAULT

Mr. Arbuthnot: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 41, leave out
'for personal injury arising out of a road accident'
and insert
`to which this section applies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 32, in page 2, line 42, leave out
'arising out of a road accident'.
No. 20, in page 2, line 42, leave out 'a road accident' and insert
'an accident which has occurred owing to the presence of a motor vehicle or trailer on a road'.
No. 21, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'shall be compensated' and insert
'the user of the vehicle shall be liable to make compensation'.
No. 31, in page 2, line 45, leave out subsection (2).
No. 22, in page 2, line 45, leave out 'exceeds a level which' and insert
'is for a sum greater than £1,000 or such higher sum as'.
No. 23, in page 2, line 46, after 'or', insert
'is in respect of a type of accident'.
No. 24, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'secure' to 'subsection (1) above' and insert
'that the user shall not he liable under subsection (1) unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks.'.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Amendment No. 29 deals with the definition of a road accident, among other matters. Clause 4 introduces the concept of no-fault compensation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Leigh, (Mr. Cunliffe) who suggested that the Bill has been hijacked. Whether or not one likes the concept of no-fault compensation, and I do not, one must accept that the wording of the clause should be clear. It suggests that there should be no-fault compensation in the case of minor road accidents. In Committee the hon. Member for Leigh said some very telling and critical things about it, with which I entirely agree.

Mr. Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman says that I said some very critical and telling things about it. In what context does he suggest that I made those comments?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I was just about to repeat one of his remarks—that the clause contained no definition of a road accident. That is a crucial criticism of it. The Bill provides that injury in a road accident will be compensated for differently from all other injuries, regardless of whether the person injured was entirely or partly to blame for his or her injuries. The whole point of the clause is that fault should not be involved. It may sound bizarre when set out in that way, but that is the aim of the clause.
The Bill contains no definition of the phrase "road accident". If road accidents are to be treated entirely differently from other accidents, it is important for us to be

sure which accidents are involved. It is important for us to know whether an air crash becomes a road accident if the aeroplane lands on a road. If a tree falls on a road and injures a pedestrian, is that a road accident? Presumably it might be if the tree fell on to a road, but not if it did not. Presumably, if the pedestrian is in the road it is a road accident, otherwise it is not. If a falling tree causes a car to crash, presumably that is a road accident, but if it has a similar effect on a tractor in a nearby field it is not a road accident. Those examples illustrate how important it is that the phrase "road accident" should be defined, and how absurd the whole concept of trying to differentiate is.
I am sorry that my amendments do not go further towards clarifying the clause. I do not think that they achieve a workable or suitable balance, but they are better than nothing. One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. My own preference would be to have no-fault compensation, but I have said enough and I know that the hon. Member for Leigh would like to express his views.

Mr. Cunliffe: I hope that the speech by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) was not motivated by the fact that he is a member of Lloyd's. The insurers are very much involved in the legislation that we have discussed and which might be forthcoming. I would ask him in the best possible way whether he has a direct interest in the matter.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I am a member of Lloyd's. I have said throughout the proceedings on the Bill that the insurers will not suffer from such a measure. The insurers will do very well out of the measure as they will simply get more business. In a sense I am speaking against myself in suggesting that the clause is not a good idea. The clause is not directly related to the insurance industry, so there is no direct need for me to declare an interest. Although I am a member of Lloyd's, I do not think that it affects my judgment.

Mr. Cunliffe: I have pointed out that in any new scheme that was introduced and inaugurated by the House, considerable time would be given for such companies to assess values, increase premiums and so on. We have discussed the matter. It was part of my Bill that the compensation advisory board would not administer any decision for about two years. That would have provided the various organisations involved with a breathing space.
It is important to understand the principles of a no-fault compensation scheme. To some extent I would welcome such a principle being established, as it would set a precedent in parliamentary history and legislation if no-fault compensation were to get a toe in the door. Many organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal Society of Medicine would welcome some form of no-fault compensation scheme. I take some small credit for the fact that my Bill has prompted the Government to initiate a feasibility study which I believe is to be forthcoming and to accept that there is a case for considering no-fault compensation.
No-fault compensation schemes abandon the rule that an injured person has to show that someone was negligent in order to maintain compensation. It is simple and straightforward.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend referred to a feasibility study on no-fault liability. He has studied the


New Zealand scheme and others across the world. Does he agree that this moment is not for feasiblity studies but for action to relieve palpable suffering on the part of bereaved and disabled people?

Mr. Cunliffe: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has mentioned the New Zealand scheme. It is a similar scheme. It provides compensation for personal accident victims, regardless of fault. The scheme came into force on 1 April 1974. It is working. It abolishes claims for personal injuries arising directly or indirectly out of accidents and substitutes a right to compensation from a statutory corporation known as the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a man in New Zealand, who was trying to escape from prison and fell off the perimeter fence and broke a leg, was given compensation from the Accident Compensation Corporation?

Mr. Cunliffe: I was not aware of that. The Chamber is a fount of knowledge. The purpose of our dialogue in this place is to acquaint hon. Members with knowledge and facts. The hon. Gentleman referred to an extreme case. We are talking about a principle that, in the main, has assisted hundreds of thousands of people with their legitimate rights to compensation. One can always quote the one-off selective case. Other schemes have different methods of calculation. We might have discussed that this morning when a point of order was raised about actuarial assessments. It is clear that the New Zealand scheme provides compensation benefits based on low earnings. The aim is to cushion losses and to encourage people to return to work or to be able to achieve at their highest possible level.
The source of funding is always debated in no-fault compensation schemes. It is a bone of contention in the House. There is a genuine attempt by the majority of hon. Members to try to get recognition of the principle of "no fault" embodied in our legislation. Funding is the most controversial aspect of the matter. In New Zealand there is a compulsory payroll levy on employers and the self-employed, a compulsory levy on motor vehicle owners, and general taxation which goes into a fund for non-earners, apart from those who are injured on the roads.
The House will obviously need to examine various elements. The first is minor road accidents. We could reduce the timetable in our courts by ensuring that speedy decisions and awards are made in disputed cases.
I know that the average time for bringing a personal injury case to court if it is contested is between three and five years, especially for children aged between seven and 11. If one were to take several thousand, or possibly 100,000 people out of that category, some benefit would follow. I should welcome that. Indeed, it was a point that I made strongly in Committee. It is premature if all the organisations involved have not been consulted. That was not the case put forward in Committee. We have a clear responsibility—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday next

Private Members' Bills

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate in Committee on Question proposed [5 May], That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

UNPRESCRIBED SPECTACLES (HEALTH WARNINGS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

LICENSING (LOW ALCOHOL DRINKS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [7 April].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ANTI-HACKING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LEASEHOLD REFORM (COMMONHOLD) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill—

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

RESALE OF TICKETS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill—

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

AIRCRAFT (FREEDOM FROM SMOKING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PUBLIC SERVICE CONTRACT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

AMUSEMENT MACHINES (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

EMPTY PROPERTY AND COMMUNITY AID BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 October.

NET BOOK AGREEMENT (ABOLITION) BILL

Order. for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (FINANCIAL BENEFITS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ANIMAL PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

SAFETY IN CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABORTION (RIGHTS OF ANCILLARY WORKERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS (REGULATION OF HOURS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: With the permission of the sponsor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Friday next.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BURGLAR ALARMS (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CONTROL OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL SCHOOLS (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

DEFAMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

TAKE AWAY FOOD (BIODEGRADABLE PACKAGING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CAR TELEPHONES (SAFETY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ENVIRONMENT CHARTER BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill—

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

POLITICAL HONOURS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONORARY CITIZENSHIP) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

CONTROL OF LITTER (FINES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. John Bowis: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill—

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PUBLIC PLACES (HYGIENE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (REAFFIRMATION AND LIMITS OF COMPETENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

RE-ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (IMPROVED PROVISION OF SERVICES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BANNING OF USELESS ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

SCHIZOPHRENIA AFTER-CARE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? day named.

CREATION OF UNITARY LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

BLASPHEMY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ITINERANTS (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 October.

DANGEROUS DOGS BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must point out that Mr. Speaker has on a number of occasions made it clear that he deprecates the practice of taking the Committee stage without adequate notice. However, I am in the hands of the House.

Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

REPRESENTATION ON NATIONAL PARKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Cunliffe.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the House will bear in mind the deprecatory words I used earlier.

Bill immediately considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third Time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

COUNTING WOMEN'S UNREMUNERATED WORK BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

PREVENTION OF CHILD ABDUCTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Through you, may I ask the Government Whips whether the Leader of the House could arrange for a statement to be made on Monday about the the petrol leak in the Dartford marshes this morning? At about 7 o'clock this morning there was a substantial petrol leak as a result of a fractured pipeline in an environmentally and ecologically sensitive area just outside Dartford. Reports suggest that the leak might have polluted the Thames and/or water and sewage. It is a sensitive area and the public are greatly concerned. The county council and the district council are involved and I believe that it is a matter on which the Leader of the House might allow a statement. I should be grateful if my request could be brought to his attention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said doubtless has been heard by those responsible.

999 Calls (South Wales)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Paul Flynn: The lifeline of 999 has served Britain well for 50 years. In the past few months in Wales public confidence in the service has been badly shaken.
Early-day motion 954 provides details of some of the life-threatening mistakes that have followed the centralising of south Wales 999 calls in Cardiff last September. Today I accuse British Telecom of undermining public trust, of downgrading the quality of the service, of putting profit before safety and of neglect and incompetence. British Telecom's bizarre defence is that the service is no worse in south Wales than in the rest of Britain, so the problem is probably a national one.
As a cost-cutting exercise, Newport and Swansea manual exchange boards were closed from 10 o'clock at night. That could not have happened without centralising 999 calls in Cardiff. Centralisation has meant deterioration. At least 300 misroutings have resulted—some comic, some nightmarish and some tragic.
An emergency message from the coastguard was twice connected to the speaking clock, then connected to Bournemouth when the coastguard wanted Barmouth. Two days ago in Gwent a caller listening to a woman being attacked and hearing her screams was told by a British Telecom operator that he was not calling from his village of Undy, but from Caerphilly, a town some 20 miles away in another county. After a two-minute delay he was connected to the wrong police station 40 miles away in Bridgend. Just 10 days' monitoring last month by Gwent ambulance service recorded five major misroutes, some of them life-threatening.
Last Friday, when I heard that I had the good fortune to have secured today's debate, I wrote to all those in professional daily contact with the new service. They all replied and I shall give a fair summary of their judgments. The Union of Communication Workers said:
BT management is obsessed not only with cutting costs but in driving down their staff-in-post figures
Its diagnosis is that
the fundamental problems are brought about by defective equipment and second-rate management.
The south Wales constabulary write of initial difficulties, but it and Gwent police have had fewer problems than other services. The south Glamorgan fire and rescue service reported 100 misrouted calls in an eight-month period following the closures of Bridgend and Merthyr exchanges and 19 misrouted calls in the first five months of this year. It looks forward to the introduction of the modern digital system to deal with calls.
The mid-Glamorgan fire service concludes that its
overall impression of the service remains that there is a lack of training and supervision of BT staff who operate the 999 service in Cardiff.
The chief fire officer of Dyfed, Mr. R. King, reports 54 calls in which misunderstandings or delays have occurred since centralisation. He writes:
The further away the recipient of the call is from the area of origin the greater the possibility of confusion, mis-understanding and delay.
There have been occasions when the BT operator taking the emergency calls has not understood"—
this is a peculiarly Welsh problem—

the Welsh pronunciation of a Welsh place name and passed the call through to the wrong control centre; Cwmafon has been mistaken for Carmarthen; Llanddarog exchange mistaken for Llanganog or Llangadog.
There must be an optimum level at which cost effectiveness, efficiency and safety are comprised. The fire service places a high value on safety.
Does British Telecom place the same value on safety?
Mr. T. Glossop, chief of the Gwent fire brigade writes:
Obviously the centralisation has not been successful to date as it has failed to provide a level of service commensurate with public safety. In my view, the difficulties centre around the technology involved … if the centralisation had been delayed until the digital system was operational these problems would not have arisen.
It is ironic that at the same time as the 999 system is having these problems, British Telecom is advertising home security systems linked to their emergency centre aimed at a profitable area of the market. The old issue of public interest or private profit.
The west Glamorgan county fire service chief, Mr. Jim Windsor, reports 55 misroutings. He writes:
I feel the service has been degraded to a level that is unacceptable. Prior to the move to Cardiff, British Telecom gave an assurance that misrouting of calls could not occur but this has proven to be a major problem. As a result of the misrouting of calls, the officers and staff of West Glamorgan Fire Service Control centre no longer have confidence in the service provided by British Telecom.
Mr. Porter, the chief ambulance officer of Gwent, carried out a brief period of monitoring. More than a year ago he, too, asked BT to delay centralisation until the digital system was ready. For a brief period of 11 days last month, he logged misdirected calls. Within that period he recorded the following confusions, none of which could have happened under the previous system, and would have been extremely unlikely under the future system using digital methods. On 11 June there was a call concerning a sick child at Saundersfoot in Dyfed. The call was directed to Crosskeys in Gwent, more than 100 miles away.
On 14 June a woman suffering from 60 per cent. burns after a fire had her emergency call misrouted from Cwmbran, Gwent to Mid-Glamorgan. There was a delay of 25 minutes. Perhaps I can engage the Minister's attention. That delay was attributed to the changes in the system. On 16 June after a road accident a Gwent town was confused with Ystradgynlais which is several valleys away from Gwent. On 21 June two calls were misdirected from Gwent to Powys.
Those sorry tales received great publicity in Wales, but British Telecom's public relations response has been sensationally inept. Five times British Telecom refused to defend itself in broadcast interviews. Finally, the district general manager, Mr. Roy Cull, emerged from his bunker and gave a now celebrated television interview. When asked a mildly challenging but perfectly fair question, he lost his temper, made a dismissive gesture and walked off the set hissing the memorable and inelegant expletive, "Stuff it". British Telecom then published an untrue excuse for Mr. Cull's startling walkout. The BBC described its explanation as a "distortion". That was a kind judgment.
British Telecom then called a further press conference to apologise and to change tack by trying to do what is done at Sellafield. It has now invited the public to visit the 999 centre. This pantomime is a classic lesson in how not to run a public relations operation. I urge the public to take up the invitation to visit the 999 centre as I did. If they do, they will see primitive technology in action. Operators push cable plugs into holes, leaf through a card index and scribble notes on a paper pad. There is more high-tech in


the average family games computer or in a domestic washing machine than in the Cardiff 999 operation. However, in a darkened room next to that antique-tech set-up is the high-tech digital system unused and waiting. It is not yet fully operational but it was unattended and no one was working on it although I called on a working day.
The most worrying question that will face visitors when they come away from their visit is whether the equipment is up to the demands of today, remembering the great increase in the number of telephones. They will see the four emergency lines—just four—that were involved in the terrible tragedy at Pembroke dock when two young boys died in a fire. That morning 28 callers tried to ring through on those four lines. The calls were made simultaneously within a half hour period. Very impressive witnesses claim that no call was recorded for 16 minutes. Visitors will also see that, in addition to those four lines, there is one overflow line. It is so ancient and the technology is so ineffective that anyone diverted to that overflow line, as dozens were that morning, will have an eight second delay—eight seconds of silence. Anyone dialling 999 and hearing eight seconds of silence would decide that they had a defective line. That is the technology being offered to us now. One wonders what the delay would have been in that large area covering Pembroke dock and a huge rural area if there had been another emergency that day, and others had called to report that emergency.
Action is now essential if the service is to regain public confidence and trust. British Telecom in Wales stands exposed as an organisation that is only reluctantly accountable, untruthful in its public statements, coarse and boorish in its public relations, and amateurish and incompetent in fulfilling its task. Is that an organisation that the public can trust to manage our 999 service? Is the bungling, offensive arrogance of Mr. Cull acceptable in a company that has been hailed as a flagship of privatisation? The public and Parliament need reassurance that when we call for help in the life-or-death emergencies that can crop up in our daily lives at any moment, we have a Rolls-Royce, top-class service to answer and not the cut-price, accident-prone, over-stretched 999 service offered by BT.
We need an inquiry into the deterioration of the 999 service throughout Britain, because I understand that the deterioration affects more than just South Wales. We need an end to the centralisation of the service until the digital system is operational. Nearly all the incidents that I have described would have been impossible under the digital system. I have seen it demonstrated, and I know that as soon as the call is received the caller's number appears on the screen. This would eliminate many of the hoax calls and the calls that are not serious. It would also mean that there would be a virtually fool-proof way to direct calls because as the call comes through, it is linked to the appropriate emergency services in the area, and ensuring that the call goes to the appropriate area is a simple matter of pressing one button on the display.
Sadly, BT has fallen between two stools. The system that worked reasonably when there were 11 exchanges manned by people with local knowledge was centralised before the digital system was ready and in place, and the result has been the problems that we now have. The conduct of the general manager of BT in Wales, Mr. Ray Cull, is such that if we are to restore confidence in the system BT should dispense with his services. The Government have to find out what happened to the safety

standards and make sure that, through Oftel and the Minister's Department, a framework is devised to ensure that safety takes its proper role as the top priority and over profits in BT's operation.
We have here a classic example of a fine service that has been corrupted by a single-minded drive for profits. The 999 service does not make a penny profit for BT, so it has been neglected. BT's energies and its top technology are devoted to its profit-rich sidelines—home security, screening of calls or intensive use of fax machines. That is where the huge profits and the burgeoning balance sheet of BT can be improved.
Condition 6 of BT's licence says that it must provide a service capable of transmitting and receiving unrestricted two-way voice telephony services and of communicating as swiftly as is practicable with any of the emergency organisations. We should examine the history of the past nine months with that condition in mind. BT in Wales, in the view of the professionals who deal with it, and in the view of the emergency services and of many who have given evidence, is no longer providing that service as swiftly and efficiently as practicable. It is far less reliable than it was before centralisation and far less efficient than it will be when the digital system is proved and operational. In its relentless pursuit of profits, BT is putting lives at risk.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): This is an important matter and I regret that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has properly raised it, somewhat spoilt his presentation of the case by larding his speech so freely with partisan slogans. As he said, this is an important public service, designed to improve the safety of families and individuals. He does his cause no service by approaching it in a highly partisan way.
It might be helpful if I set out the background. Last year British Telecom handled 19 million 999 calls. Of those, 950—0·005 per cent.—went astray due to operator mistakes. Except in exceptional circumstances, such as following major disasters, the level of complaints about the 999 service has been remarkably low.
In south Wales, BT's Cardiff exchange last year handled 815,000 emergency calls. Of those, only one third—fewer than 300,000—actually required connection to the emergency services. The fact is that as well as those who simply do not require the emergency services or those who simply misdial, there are large numbers of hoax calls. That is deplorable, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares that view. It places an enormous strain on the service and greatly increases the chances of genuine cases not being dealt with properly. I was horrified when I heard about the high numbers of hoax calls. All hon. Members should call on the public to use this important public service responsibly—as, indeed, most people do.
Of the genuine calls in south Wales, a small number—about 10 a year, in contrast with the large numbers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—are misdirected through operator error. I am not suggesting that that is satisfactory, but nevertheless it is a small number. Indeed, the figure is little different from that experienced either historically in south Wales or nationally. The allegations


that errors have been caused by centralisation or cost-cutting are simply nonsense. No adverse developments can be attributed to the system.
British Telecom attaches the highest priority to ensuring that in the modernisation of its network—of which we all approve—the emergency services should not be disrupted, but, indeed, should be improved. During the last financial year BT undertook to invest £2·9 billion in its network. It replaced two outdated exchanges every working day and has laid more than 500,000 km of optic fibre since 1984. A quarter of its network is already digitalised, and all will be within a few years.
In Cardiff the majority of calls are handled by a modern exchange that was recently opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The equipment that will handle 999 calls is currently being tried on standard 100 operator calls. It is right and responsible that BT should test the system in that way and not extend it to 999 calls until it is entirely robust and BT is satisfied that it will improve the service, not jeopardise it. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take issue with that responsible approach.
I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman and some of his Friends want to carry out a campaign that has done nothing but make the job of the emergency call service more difficult.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Maude: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman used up quite a lot of time and I have points that I wish to make before the debate ends.
The hon. Gentleman's campaign has increased the number of unnecessary calls from the public to the 999 service. People are phoning to find out whether the service is as bad as the hon. Gentleman has made it out to be. That has made the job of running this important service considerably more difficult. Hon. Members should support the service, not make its task more difficult. Hon. Members could take one practical step if they seek further reassurance—they should direct their concerns to Sir Bryan Carsberg, the Director General of Telecommunications. His office has the duty of monitoring and enforcing the conditions of licences issued to public telecommunications operators. I know that he is concerned to ensure that the full range of public responsibilities are met by such operators. I do not know whether he would see fit to take action in this instance, but, rather than mounting what has in some cases turned into a vicious campaign against British Telecom, the hon. Gentleman should address his complaints to Sir Bryan so that they can be properly investigated. That is his proper recourse.
I know that most hon. Members share my admiration for those who provide these vital emergency services, and I find it wholly regrettable that some people should denigrate others who work so hard to ensure the safety of the public. The whole issue has put considerable personal pressure on the operators who man the service in south Wales, and I do not believe that that is likely to enhance their performance. I assure them that Conservative Members, at any rate, support them fully, and I very much regret that they will not be able to rely on support from both sides of the House.
The hon. Gentleman should desist from his campaign, which has, in itself, done much to undermine public confidence in the service and to sap the morale of those who provide it. This campaign of denigration has done nothing but harm, and it should cease.

Mr. Flynn: That was a disgraceful reply. I am very disappointed that the Minister has not taken my remarks on board. My personal involvement in the campaign is due purely to my being a Member of Parliament for Newport. There are two Newports in Wales, and on three occasions when calls have been made from one of them the emergency services have been sent to the other, 140 miles away.
I could show the Minister a good many letters of support for what he called a campaign, but what in fact is evidence provided by the emergency service and its victims. I refused to comment in the press on the first case involving the two Newports, because I naively believed what British Telecom said—that it had been a one-off. Today we have heard the fatuous claim that there have been only 10 such cases. If the Minister reads Hansard, he will discover how many people he is contradicting. According to correspondence that I have received in the past week, one ambulance service found five cases of misdirection within 10 days, one involving 25 minutes' delay in attending to a women with terrible injuries.
The evidence presented by all the ambulance services in Wales, and by the other groups, is overwhelming. British Telecom has a fine service for the future, but, driven by the desire for cuts, it cut services in the areas and sacked staff before the centralised service was technologically capable of handling the new calls.
This is not just my evidence; it is the evidence of the professionals. It is wrong to try to escape from that by turning the accusation on those who were genuinely disturbed. Like many other people, I have had the terrible experience of making a 999 call when a member of my family was dying, and I know the agony involved. I know that every second feels like a minute while the ambulance does not arrive. For many people that anguish has been doubled, because their faith in the service has gone.
The Government should have responded positively today. They should have told us that the technology at the end of a 999 call is the best possible: there can be no delay. The technology of the Cardiff exchange is out of date. I have seen that, and others will see the same if they go there. Expenditure on high technology is being confined to the high-profit services; we are seeing the effects of privatisation.
This is not a partisan point. We are talking about services that are dedicated to the public good, and the 999 service is very precious to us. We want to know that the service is there and that it is the best. It has been downgraded in south Wales, and the result is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps I am in error, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech. If so, it is an overlengthy intervention.

Mr. Flynn: I understood that the Minister had finished, and I was making use of the time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have the right to address the House twice.

Mr. Flynn: I beg leave to ask permission to address the House twice, as my understanding is that the Minister has concluded his speech.

Mr. Maude: Certainly not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Leave withheld.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Three o'clock.